h 


:=i^^ 


•UNIVERS/,, 


Studies  in  Socialism 


By 

Jean  Jaurès 

Translated,  with  an  Introduction,  by 
Mildred  Minturn 


Authorised  English  Version 


G.  P.  Putnam's  Sons 

New  Yori^   and  London 

XLbc  IRnlchcrbocFîer  iptegs 

1906 


3^^0^ 


Copyright,  igo6 

BY 

MILDRED  MINTURN 


Ube  ftnfcfterboclter  press,  "fflcw  lt?orft 


HX 


CONTENTS 


PÂGB 

Transi,ator's  Introduction       ....         v 


SOCIALISE/  AND  LIFE 

I— The  Sociawst  Aim 3 

II — Socialism  and  Life            ....  10 

III — The  Radicai^  and  Private  Property    .  23 

rv— Rough  Outi^ines 34 

RE  VOL  UTIONAR  Y  E  VOL  UTION 


V — After  Fifty  Years 
VI— Revoi,utionary  Majorities 
VII— Some  Sayings  of  Lieernecht 

VIII— LlEBKNECHT  on  SOCIAWST  TaCTICS 

IX— "To  Expand,  not  to  Contract" 

X— SOCIAUSM  AND  THE  PRIVII,EGED  CI,ASSES 

XI— The  Necessity  for  a  Majority 
iii 


43 
51 
60 
70 
79 
Ô7 
94 


iv  Contents 

XII — The  Gênerai,  Strike  and  Revolution   .  io6 

XIII— The  Question  op  Method        .       .       .  130 

MISCELLANEOUS 

XIV — Speech  at  the  Anglo-French  Parlia-   , 

MENTARY  Dinner 170 

XV— Truth  or  Fiction  ? 176 

XVI— Moonlight 184 

Index 193 


TRANSLATOR'S   INTRODUCTION 

The  following  essays  were  first  published  in  a 
Socialist  daily  paper  in  Paris,  and  are  therefore 
addressed  to  a  public  not  only  well  versed  in  the 
main  theories  of  Socialism,  but  in  the  various 
questions  that  have  arisen  since  Socialist  ideas 
have  ceased  to  be  merely  theories  and  have  be- 
come crystallised  into  party  programmes.  In 
America,  however,  we  cannot  take  for  granted, 
as  M.  Jaurès  does,  a  familiarity  with  these  ideas, 
and  it  has  therefore  seemed  best  to  prefix  to  a 
translation  of  his  essays  a  summary  of  the  funda- 
mental Socialist  theories  and  of  the  various 
methods  advocated. 

Although  Socialists  differ  upon  many  points, 
they  all  agree  on  the  following  main  definition: 

Socialism  is  the  doctrine  that  the  means  of  pro- 
duction (that  is,  capital,  land,  and  raw  materials, 
or  in  other  words,  all  wealth  which  is  used  for  the 
creation  of  more  wealth)  should  not  be  owned  by 
individuals,  but  by  society. 

In  order  to  understand  the  process  of  thought 
by  which  Socialists  have  arrived  at  this  formula, 
we  may  imagine  an  unprejudiced  observer  of  a 
philosophic  turn  of  mind  who  has  set  himself  to 


vi        Translator's  Introduction 

consider  the  spectacle  offered  by  modern  societies, 
and  to  judge  it  according  to  two  standards,  the 
standard  of  abstract  justice  and  the  standard  of 
social  expediency. 


The  first  thing  that  will  strike  such  an  observer 
is  the  extraordinary  difference  in  the  amount  of 
material  comfort  enjoyed  by  different  members  of 
the  same  political  group,  a  difference  so  great  that 
the  community  may  be  almost  said  to  represent  two 
civilisations;  and  the  next  thing  will  probably  be 
the  difference  in  social  standing,  which  practically 
divides  the  community  into  groups  of  masters  and 
servants. 

As  he  looks  about  him  he  sees  some  men  be- 
ginning to  work  at  sordid  and  unpleasant  labour 
at  seven  o'clock  in  the  morning  and  keeping  on 
till  six  at  night,  and  at  the  end  of  such  a  day  go- 
ing home  to  a  two-room  tenement;  he  sees  that 
they  and  their  wives  and  children  are  under- 
nourished, that  their  clothing  is  insufficient,  and 
that  all  the  conditions  of  their  lives  are  unsanitary 
and  uncivilised/     And  he  sees  some  men  whose 


1  "  In  this  community,  the  saddest  in  which  I  have  ever 
lived,  fully  fifty  thousand  men,  women,  and  children 
were  all  the  time  in  poverty,  or  on  the  verge  of  poverty. 
It  would  not  be  possible  to  describe  how  they  worked 
and  starved  and  ached  to  rise  out  of  it.  They  broke  their 
health  down  ;  the  men  acquired  in  this  particular  trade 
a  painful  and  disabling  rheumatism,  and  consumption 


Translator's  Introduction       vii 

work  is  far  lighter  and  more  agreeable,  or  who  do 
not  work  at  all,  and  yet  whose  lives  are  made  up 
of  every  material  satisfaction  their  imaginations 
can  conceive.  Although  between  these  two  ex- 
tremes there  exist  an  almost  infinite  number  of 
degrees  of  wealth,  statistics  will  tell  him  that  in 
both  England  and  America  '  '  nine  tenths  of  all 
the  realised  property  to-day  belongs  to  a  class  that 
comprises  only  one  tenth  of  the  population — that 
ninety  per  cent,  of  the  citizens,  the  great  mass  of 
the  people,  share  among  them,  even  including 
their  little  homes  and  furniture,  and  all  their 
much- vaunted  hoards,  the  ownership  of  not  more 
than  ten  per  cent,  of  the  capital  wealth."  '  It  is 
for  this  upper  tenth  of  the  population  that  all  the 
luxuries  and  most  of  the  comforts  of  life   are 


was  very  common.  The  girls  and  boys  followed  in  the 
paths  of  their  parents.  The  wages  were  so  low  that  the 
men  alone  often  could  not  support  their  families,  and 
mothers  with  babies  toiled  in  order  to  add  to  the  income. 
They  gave  up  all  thought  of  joyful  living,  probably  in  the 
hope  that  by  tremendous  exertion  they  could  overcome 
their  poverty  ;  but  they  gained  while  at  work  only 
enough  to  keep  their  bodies  alive.  Theirs  was  a  sort  of 
treadmill  existence,  with  no  prospect  of  anything  else  in 
life  but  more  treadmill.  .  .  .  There  are  probably  in 
fairly  prosperous  years  no  less  than  ten  million  persons 
in  poverty  ;  that  is  to  say,  underfed,  underclothed,  and 
poorly  housed.  .  .  .  Nearly  half  of  the  families  in  the 
country  are  property  less." — Robert  Hunter,  Poverty,  pp. 
324,  325,  and  337. 

'  See  Introduction  to  1902  edition  oî  Problems  of  Mod- 
ern Industry,  by  Sidney  and  Beatrice  Webb,  p.  viii. 


viii      Translator's  Introduction 

manufactured.  For  them  the  best  books  are 
written,  the  best  plays  acted,  the  fastest  steamers 
hurry  across  the  seas,  and  all  the  discoveries  of 
science  are  applied.  It  is  they  who  live  to  the 
full,  it  is  they  who  enjoy,  who  develop  men- 
tally and  spiritually  through  their  contact  with 
the  beauty  and  civilisation  of  their  own  and 
other  worlds.  They  are  the  ones  who  can  pay. 
But  the  other  nine  tenths  are  condemned  not 
only  to  physical  discomfort  but,  far  more  tragi- 
cally, to  a  stunting  even  of  their  capacity  for 
the  higher  forms  of  enjoyment.  They  cannot 
pay. 

The  philosopher  will  naturally  try  to  discover 
the  reason  for  this  abyss  which,  in  dividing  the 
nation  into  owners  and  non-owners,  divides  it  also 
into  two  civilisations.  He  may  be  tempted  to 
accept  the  easy  generalisation  current  in  society 
which  will  run  somewhat  as  follows: 

'  '  Wealth  is  in  the  first  instance  a  reward  of 
industry.  It  comes  to  a  man  as  the  natural  result 
of  the  work  he  performs.  If  he  is  very  industrious 
or  very  skilful  and  earns  more  wealth  than  he 
needs  to  satisfy  his  immediate  wants,  or  if  he  is 
very  thrifty  and  sacrifices  some  of  his  less  pressing 
desires,  he  is  able  to  accumulate  wealth.  This 
accumulation  he  will  use  to  create  more  wealth, 
and  he  then  becomes  a  capitalist.  The  capitalist, 
therefore,  is  either  an  exceptionally  industrious, 
an  exceptionally  skilful,  or  an  exceptionally  ab- 
stemious man.     In  any  case  he  is  an  exceptionally 


Translator's  Introduction        ix 

valuable  member  of  the  community,  and  deserves 
his  exceptional  rewards.  '  ' 

But  a  study  of  the  facts  will  lead  our  enquirer 
to  discover  some  weaknesses  in  this  pleasantly 
simple  solution.  He  will  see  that  up  to  a  certain 
point  the  theory  holds  good,  but  to  a  certain  point 
only.  It  is  true  that  the  unskilled  labourer,  who 
gives  work  of  least  value  to  the  community,  re- 
ceives the  lowest  wages,  the  skilled  labourer  next, 
the  engineer  next,  and  so  on.  But  this  compre- 
hensible ascending  scale  is  thrown  out  of  all  pro- 
portion by  the  appearance  on  the  scene  of  the 
shop-keeping  and  trading  class.  The  relation 
between  services  and  rewards  becomes  confused: 
the  rewards  seem  to  mount  up  by  some  magical 
compound-interest  process.  Our  neat  little  gen- 
eralisation about  industry  and  thrift  takes  on  a 
singularly  inadequate,  not  to  say  comic,  appear- 
ance when  applied  to  the  manipulators  of  the 
stock-market  or  the  railroad  barons.  And  in  the 
case  of  a  large  number  of  persons  who  perform  no 
kind  of  work  whatever  (or  who  perform  work  that 
has  nothing  to  do  with  the  source  of  their  wealth) 
and  yet  into  whose  hands  a  regular  supply  of 
wealth  flows  incessantly,  the  explanation  breaks 
down  altogether. 

Another  factor  has  entered  in,  and  this  factor  is 
the  private  ownership  of  capital.  It  disturbs  the 
relation  between  services  and  rewards;  its  action 
illustrates  the  law  "  unto  him  that  hath  shall  be 
given  '  '  without  regard  to  what  he  has  done  or  is 


X         Translator's  Introduction 

doing.  Its  effect  is  very  similar  to  that  of  a  mov- 
ing sidewalk.  Nine  tenths  of  the  human  race 
walk  on  their  own  feet  and  go  fast  or  slow  accord- 
ing to  the  strength  they  have  and  the  effort  they 
put  forth.  These  are  the  manual  workers,  arti- 
sans, and  propertyless  professional  men,  whose 
reward  is  indeed  proportioned  to  their  industry, 
skill,  and  thrift.  But  one  tenth  are  able  to  jump 
on  to  the  moving  sidewalk,  or  are  deposited  there 
by  the  effort  or  favour  of  others;  they  get  a  share 
of  wealth-producing  wealth  and  are  carried  along 
by  it.  They  may  keep  on  walking  or  not  just  as 
they  choose;  if  they  do  they  will  go  a  bit  faster, 
if  they  stand  still  they  will  go  forward  just  the 
same.  Some  of  them  may  manage  to  jump  on  to 
the  faster  moving  inner  circles;  these  are  the  men 
who  have  manipulated  their  share  of  wealth- 
producing  wealth  with  most  success.  And  some 
men  have  never  had  to  walk  on  the  solid  resisting 
earth  at  all.  They  cannot  imagine  what  it  would 
be  like  not  to  have  the  moving  sidewalk  to  help 
them  along.  They  may  have  neither  skill  nor 
ability,  but  their  fathers  had,  and  there  they 
are. 

So  our  philosopher  can  amend  his  original  an- 
swer thus:  "  Wealth  is  a  reward  of  industry  and 
a  reward  of  thrift,  but  much  more  than  these,  a 
reward  for  the  possession  of  wealth." 

He  will  recognise  that  industry  and  thrift  alone 
are  not  enough  to  give  a  man  a  good  place  on  the 
moving  sidewalk.     Another  quality  altogether,  a 


Translator's  Introduction        xi 

quality  which  we  in  America  have  christened 
"  smartness,"  takes  a  man  from  the  ranks  of  the 
non-owners  and  makes  him  a  member  of  the  upper 
tenth.  The  smart  man  can  make  a  shrewd  bar- 
gain, he  can  foresee  the  fluctuations  in  the  market, 
he  knows  a  thousand  ways  of  getting  the  better 
of  his  adversaries  in  the  game  known  as  business 
competition,  he  has  a  keen  understanding  of  cer- 
tain elementary  truths  about  men  and  things,  and 
is  able  to  see  a  little  further  into  the  future  than 
other  people.  Smartness,  in  the  business  sense, 
may  be  defined  as  the  sum  of  those  qualities  that 
enable  a  man  to  get  hold  of  a  share  of  wealth- 
producing  wealth,  to  enter  the  owning  class. 

"  What  is  the  point  of  this  argument  ?  "  the  de- 
fender of  the  status  quo  might  ask;  "  so  long  as  a 
man  keeps  the  law,  has  n't  he  a  right  to  all  the 
wealth  he  can  get  ?  '  ' 

But  our  philosopher  is  looking  at  the  question 
from  another  point  of  view.  He  is  interested  in 
a  larger  justice  than  is  involved  in  the  mere  obey- 
ing of  existing  laws:  it  is  his  business  to  examine 
those  laws  by  the  standards  of  abstract  right  and 
the  advantage  of  the  community  as  a  whole. 

Is  the  division  of  wealth  just,  then?  Does  it, 
in  other  words,  go  to  the  people  who  have  earned 
it  ?  If  we  are  to  answer  "  yes  "  to  this  question, 
we  must  be  able  to  show  that  the  mere  fact  of 
owning  wealth  contributes  in  some  way  to  the 
growth  of  that  wealth,  because  we  have  seen  that 
it  is  the  ability  to  become  an  owner  of  wealth,  and 


xii       Translator's  Introduction 

no  other  sort  of  ability,  that  gives  a  man  a  place 
on  the  moving  sidewalk. 

But  it  is  impossible  to  establish  any  causal  con- 
nection between  the  ownership  of  capital  and  its 
wealth-producing  quality.  It  may  be  owned  by 
a  single  man,  or  by  a  group  of  men,  by  an  idle 
woman  living  in  Europe,  or  by  a  little  child:  the 
owner,  as  owner,  is  a  negligible  quantity.  And 
if  the  "  smart  man  "  is  not  an  organiser  or  man- 
ager as  well  as  owner,  he  contributes  nothing  to 
the  process  of  creating  the  yearly  return.  The 
people  who  make  the  sidewalk  move  are  those 
who  apply  their  industry  to  capital:  they  are  the 
managers  and  foremen,  the  mechanics,  artisans, 
and  labourers,  the  farmers  and  hewers  of  wood 
and  drawers  of  water,  all  the  thousands  of  men 
whose  hands  and  brains  are  used  to  mould  and 
transform  wealth  into  new  shapes,  to  move  it  from 
the  place  where  it  is  created  to  the  place  where  it 
is  needed,  who  gather  in  the  fruits  of  the  earth 
and  who  labour  to  make  it  yield  its  increase.  In 
so  far  as  the  smart  business  man  uses  his  brain  to 
help  on  this  great  productive  process  or  to  facili- 
tate the  exchange  of  the  product,  he  has  earned 
a  share  of  the  common  wealth.  But  as  a  mere 
owner  he  is  outside  the  creative  process. 

It  is  clear,  then,  that  our  philosopher  must  an- 
swer "  no  "  to  the  question  whether  the  division 
of  wealth  is  just.  It  certainly  does  not  go  in  due 
proportion  to  the  people  who  have  created  it. 
But  is  it  perhaps  distributed  according  to  some 


Translator's  Introduction      xiil 

principle  of  social  expediency  ?  He  will  ask  him- 
self whether  it  is  well  for  the  community  that  a 
premium  should  be  given  to  the  quality  of  smart- 
ness at  the  expense  of  the  qualities  of  thrift  and 
industry,  a  premium  so  great  that  its  benefits 
accrue  not  only  to  the  smart  man  himself  but  to 
his  children  and  his  children's  children,  who  may 
have  no  socially  valuable  qualities  whatever.  Is 
it  well  for  society  that  the  trust  organiser  should 
have  an  income  five  hundred  times  as  great  as 
that  of  the  college  professor,  that  a  good  business 
head  should  get  so  much  greater  a  return  for  its 
exertions  than  a  fine  scientific  brain  ?  And  is  it 
well  that  the  son  of  a  bank  president  should  re- 
ceive, as  a  reward  for  merely  existing,  a  share  of 
the  common  wealth  two  hundred  times  as  great 
as  that  meted  out  to  the  civil  engineer  ?  Again 
the  answer  must  inevitably  be  "  no." 

II 

But  this  is  not  all.  Not  only  are  the  material 
desires  of  the  owners  satisfied  out  of  all  proportion 
to  the  work  they  perform,  but  they  also  occupy 
a  position  of  social  superiority  which  practically 
divides  society  into  groups  of  rulers  and  ruled. 

The  reason  for  this  is  to  be  found  in  the  con- 
ditions under  which  wealth  is  created.  The  pro- 
cess is  simple.  To  live  a  man  must  have  not  only 
the  wealth  that  he  consumes  in  food,  lodging,  and 
clothing  to-day,  but  the  means  of  creating  a  new 
supply   of   that  same  wealth   to-morrow.      His 


xiv      Translator's  Introduction 

strength  and  skill  are  of  no  use  to  him  unless  he 
has  the  material  on  which  to  exercise  them.  But 
as  that  material  is  all  in  the  hands  of  other  men, 
he  has  to  go  to  them  to  ask  for  the  privilege  of 
working  in  order  to  live.  From  that  moment 
their  power  over  him  begins  to  be  exercised. 
Though  it  is  true  that  the  owners  of  wealth  need 
the  labour  of  the  non-owner  in  order  to  make 
their  wealth  yield  its  increase  (or  as  the  optimistic 
conservatives  are  so  fond  of  putting  it,  '  '  Capital 
and  L,abour  are  partners  "),  they  do  not  need  the 
labour  as  much  as  the  labourer  needs  the  wealth. 
For  the  labourer's  position  is  essentially  a  hand- 
to-mouth  one:  he  must  have  instant  access  to  the 
material,  while  the  owners  can  very  well  let  it 
stand  over  for  a  while  if  it  seems  more  to  their 
advantage  to  do  so.  The  most  they  can  lose  by 
delay  is  an  expected  addition  to  their  wealth:  he 
loses  the  necessities  of  life.  From  this  superior 
position  in  the  matter  of  the  labour  contract  it  re- 
sults that  the  owners  or  their  agents  do  actually 
control  the  conditions  of  life  of  the  non-owner. 
They  decide  in  the  first  place  whether  he  shall 
work  at  all:  if  for  any  reason  it  seems  more  profit- 
able for  them  that  he  should  remain  in  idleness, 
they  deny  him  access  to  the  material  he  needs  in 
order  to  work,  and  he  has  no  choice  but  to  wait 
their  good  pleasure.' 

'  Robert  Hunter  states  that  in  America  over  two  million 
working  men  are  unemployed  from  four  to  six  months  in 
the  year.    "  If  what  Charles  Booth  says  is  true  (and  many 


Translator's  Introduction       xv 

In  the  second  place,  they  decree  the  kind  and 
amount  of  labour  he  shall  perform  and  the  con- 
ditions under  which  he  shall  perform  it:  hours  of 
work,  sanitation,  comfort,  safety,  are  all  con- 
trolled by  the  owners. 

And  in  the  third  place,  they  decide  how  much 
of  the  product  he  shall  have  as  a  reward  for  his 
labour,  and  in  so  doing  they  practically  determine 
the  quality  or  quantity  of  food  he  can  eat,  the 
lodging  he  can  inhabit,  the  clothes  he  can  wear, 
the  amusement  he  can  indulge  in,  the  degree  of 
health  and  efficiency  he  shall  enjoy — in  a  word 
they  may  be  described  as  determining  by  their 
action  the  kind  of  person  he  is  to  become  and 
(what  is  more  extraordinary)  the  kind  of  people 
his  wife  and  children  shall  become. 


economists  agree  with  him),  that  our  '  modern  system  of 
industry  will  not  work  without  some  unemployed  mar- 
gin, some  reserve  of  labour  '  ;  if  it  is  necessary,  as  another 
economist  has  said,  that  for  long  periods  of  time  large 
stagnant  pools  of  adult  effective  labour  power  must  lie 
rotting  in  the  bodies  of  their  owners,  unable  to  become 
productive  of  any  form  of  wealth  because  they  cannot 
get  access  to  the  material  of  production  ;  and  if,  at  the 
same  time,  facing  them  in  equal  idleness  are  unemployed 
or  under-employed  masses  of  land  and  capital,  mills, 
mines,  etc.,  which,  taken  in  conjunction  with  the  labour 
power,  are  theoretically  able  to  produce  wealth  for  the 
satisfaction  of  human  wants,  if  these  things  are  essential 
to  our  modern  system  of  production,  then  the  poverty  of 
this  large  mass  of  workers  must  continue  unrelieved  until 
the  system  itself  is  reorganised." — Hunter,  Poverty,  pp. 
330.  331.  and  337. 


xvi      Translator's  Introduction 

I  do  not  need  to  explain  that  this  extreme 
statement  of  the  case  only  holds  good  for  the 
lowest  grades  of  labour  of  which  there  is  a  practi- 
cally unlimited  supply.  As  soon  as  the  labourer 
acquires  special  skill  his  work  has  the  added 
value  that  comes  from  a  limitation  in  the  supply, 
and  the  overwhelming  advantage  of  capital  is 
slightly  counteracted.  This  accounts  for  the 
reasonable  ascending  scale  of  rewards  for  labour 
noticed  at  first.  The  despotic  position  of  the 
owners  is  still  more  effectually  diminished  when 
many  non-owners  unite  and  make  a  single 
bargain,  thus  controlling  the  supply  of  labour 
artificially.  Though  the  terms  on  which  the 
non-owners  are  able  to  get  access  to  the  wealth  of 
the  owners  are  much  more  favourable  when  the 
former  act  as  a  unit,  one  has  only  to  compare  the 
conditions  of  life  of,  for  example,  the  members  of 
the  United  Mine  Workers  with  those  of  the  presi- 
dents of  the  coal-carrying  railroads  who  employ 
them,  in  order  to  form  some  notion  of  the  degree 
of  equality  in  bargaining  attained  even  under 
these  most  favourable  conditions  for  the  non- 
owners.' 

After  all  the  modifying  factors  have  been  taken 
into  consideration,  it  remains  generally  true  that 
wealth-producing  wealth  may  give  to  its  owners 

'  For  a  full  discussion  of  this  subject  see  Sidney  and 
Beatrice  Webb,  hidnstrial  Democracy,  Part  III.,  Chap- 
ters ii.  and  iii.,  or  The  Case  for  the  Factory  Acts,  edited 
by  Mrs.  Sidney  Webb. 


Translator's  Introduction     xvii 

so  great  a  power  over  the  lives  of  those  who  must 
get  at  that  wealth  in  order  to  live  that  it  may 
fairly  be  described  as  tyrannical.  Indeed  so  un- 
doubted is  this  power  that  one  of  those  who  exer- 
cise it  felt  constrained  to  account  for  its  existence 
by  declaring,  in  words  that  instantly  became 
famous,  that  in  his  opinion  it  was  of  divine 
origin;  God  in  His  infinite  wisdom  had  chosen 
certain  worthy  men  to  administer  the  wealth  of 
the  country,  and  the  inference  was  that  any  re- 
volt-against  their  authority  was  impious.  If  it  is 
fair  to  judge  any  system  by  the  statements  that 
its  warmest  supporters  make  concerning  it,  the 
present  system  under  which  wealth  is  produced 
must  stand  condemned  on  the  strength  of  the  de- 
fence offered  by  that  railroad  president.  Accord- 
ing to  the  standard  of  justice  and  social  expediency 
the  process  by  which  wealth  is  created  is  as  im- 
perfect as  that  by  which  it  is  divided. 

Ill 

It  would  be  a  mistake,  however,  to  hold  the 
individual  owner  responsible  for  social  injustice. 
The  tyranny  of  the  owner  is  in  most  cases  an  im- 
personal tyranny,  not  deliberate  or  malevolent, 
but  mechanical,  indirect,  and  inevitable.  He 
does  what  is  called  "  investing  his  money,"  that 
is,  he  puts  the  wealth-producing  wealth  at  his 
disposal  into  the  hands  of  a  group  of  other  men, 
organisers,  managers,  and  so  on,  who  take  upon 


xviii    Translator's  Introduction 

themselves  the  care  of  making  it  yield  a  certain 
return.  Self-interest  and  honesty  combined  make 
them  see  to  it  that  he  gets  as  large  a  return  as  pos- 
sible: they  are  "  looking  after  the  interests  of  their 
stockholders,"  and  with  their  eyes  fixed  on  that 
side  of  the  "labour-contract,"  they  not  unnatur- 
ally disregard  the  other.  One  sees  constant  ex- 
amples of  this  during  strikes,  when  the  employees 
urge  on  the  one  hand  that  they  are  working  ten 
hours  a  day  for  a  bare  "  living  wage,"  and  the 
answer  of  the  representative  of  the  employers  al- 
ways is:  "  But  as  it  is  we  only  just  make  enough 
profit  to  pay  our  dividends,  so  any  question  of 
raising  wages  is  absurd."  The  manager  of  an 
impersonal  business  concern  may  be  a  most  just 
and  tender-hearted  man,  but  as  an  agent  he  has 
no  choice  but  to  ensure  the  profit  of  his  employers 
before  he  can  consider  the  "  standard  of  life  "  of 
their  employees.  And  the  individual  owner  may 
be  a  just  and  tender-hearted  man,  but  what  can 
one  shareholder  in  a  great  trust  do  to  change  the 
wages  or  conditions  of  work  of  the  employees  of 
the  trust  ?  Our  vast  organisation  of  industry  has 
completely  separated  the  owner  from  the  producer. 
He  may  feel  a  sense  of  responsibility  for  the  lives 
of  those  non-owners  whose  work  brings  him  his 
yearly  quota  of  comfort  and  pleasure,  but  he  is  as 
helplessly  a  part  of  the  system  as  the  poorest 
labourer. 

It  is  the  system  and  not  the  individual  who 
profits  by  it  that  is  the  important  factor  in  the 


Translator's  Introduction      xix 

situation,  and  it  is  therefore  not  so  important  to 
enquire  whether  the  moral  character  of  the  indi- 
vidual can  be  reformed,  as  to  discover  whether  the 
system  can  be  so  changed  that  it  will  become  im- 
possible for  the  natural  egotism  of  man  to  bring 
about  conditions  so  unjust  to  the  majority  and  so 
inexpedient  for  society  as  a  whole. 

But  it  is  precisely  at  this  point  that  many  men 
who  consider  themselves  particularly  unprejudiced 
and  open-minded,  stop  thinking.  They  accom- 
plish this  feat  by  the  timely  application  of  a  phrase 
ready-made  to  suit  any  emergency:  "  The  struggle 
for  life  and  the  survival  of  the  fittest." 

'  '  You  approach  this  question  from  the  wrong 
end  altogether,"  such  a  man  would  say.  "  You 
talk  about  social  justice  and  social  expediency, 
but  what  we  are  dealing  with  are  Laws  of  Nature, 
and  Nature  knows  neither  justice  nor  expediency. 
What  she  cares  about  is  the  production  of  types 
that  shall  be  fit  to  survive,  and  her  method  is 
pitiless  warfare.  In  the  case  of  man,  the  struggle 
for  survival  is  the  social  struggle.  It  may  not  be 
pretty,  but  it  is  necessary.  You  cannot  change 
Nature:  all  you  can  do  is  to  ameliorate  conditions 
a  little  by  prevailing  upon  the  most  successful  in- 
dividuals to  render  the  lot  of  the  least  successful 
a  little  less  unendurable,  and  even  that  is  of  doubt- 
ful benefit  to  society,  which  can  only  advance  by 
the  elimination  of  the  '  least  fit.'  " 

This  is  a  seductive  theory,  but  the  knowledge 
of  a  little  history  and  a  little  science  candidly 


XX       Translator's  Introduction 

brought  to  bear  upon  it  will  soon  reveal  its  super- 
ficial nature.  Ever  since  the  first  group  of  sav- 
ages found  that  it  was  safer  for  them  to  unite  in 
the  eternal  fight  agaiust  the  animals  and  against 
other  savages  than  to  face  the  hostile  world  as  in- 
dividuals, there  have  been  two  sets  of  phenomena 
to  be  considered:  those  which  have  to  do  with 
man  as  an  individual,  and  those  which  have  to 
do  with  him  as  a  member  of  a  community.  The 
*  '  scientific  '  '  critic  quoted  above  forgets  that 
Nature  is  as  much  interested  in  the  development 
of  the  community  as  in  the  development  of  the 
individual,  and  that  the  process  of  producing 
communities  fit  to  survive  has  had  a  distinct  reac- 
tion upon  the  primitive  instincts  of  the  individual. 
The  struggle  for  life  can  never  be  done  away 
with,  but  it  has  manifested  itself  under  so  many 
different  forms  in  the  past  that  there  is  no  reason 
to  suppose  its  present  form  is  the  permanent  one. 
Society  has  evolved  from  savagery  to  barbarism, 
from  barbarism  to  feudalism,  from  feudalism  to 
individualism,  and  with  every  change  the  rela- 
tions of  individuals  to  each  other  have  been  modi- 
fied, the  form  of  the  struggle  has  altered,  and  the 
situation  of  those  individuals  who  have  not  been 
successful  is  somewhat  improved.  The  position 
of  the  modern  industrial  wage-earner  is  bad,  but 
it  is  a  step  in  advance  of  serfdom,  as  serfdom  was 
a  step  in  advance  of  slavery .  And  if  we  can  j  udge 
society  by  the  situation  of  its  most  unfortunate 
members  as  a  chain  is  judged  by  its  weakest  link, 


Translator's  Introduction      xxi 

we  must  acknowledge  that  society  is  moving  in 
the  direction  of  justice. 

It  is  then  perfectly  legitimate  to  try  to  under- 
stand the  essential  characteristics  of  the  present 
form  in  which  the  struggle  for  life  is  embodied 
and  to  compare  it  with  a  standard  of  abstract 
justice.  In  so  doing  we  are  merely  putting  our- 
selves in  line  with  the  evolutionary  process:  we 
are  trying  to  foresee  and,  if  possible,  to  help  to 
bring  about  the  new  and  juster  form. 


IV 


We  may  imagine  that  the  philosopher  with 
whom  we  began  this  enquiry  has  followed  a  line 
of  reasoning  somewhat  like  the  preceding.  He 
has  seen  that  the  creation  of  a  new  supply  of 
wealth  was  due  to  the  joint  activities  of  thousands 
of  individuals  and  not  to  the  existence,  inactive 
or  otherwise,  of  a  single  individual  who  was 
called  the  owner  of  the  original  supply.  Now  if 
private  ownership  of  capital  is  not  a  necessary 
factor  in  the  production  of  new  wealth,  and  if  it 
is  a  necessary  factor  in  the  unjust  distribution  of 
that  wealth,  our  philosopher  will  ask  himself  why 
the  problem  should  not  be  solved  by  eliminating 
the  individual  owner  from  the  scheme  of  produc- 
tion and  distribution  altogether,  and  by  putting  in 
his  place  society  as  a  whole. 

And  when  he  has  grasped  this  fact,  that  wealth 
is  a  social  product,  and  that,  being  the  product  of 


xxii     Translator's  Introduction 

society,  it  should  be  owned  and  administered  by 
society  for  the  benefit  of  all  its  members  and  not 
by  individuals  for  their  own  benefit,  he  may  call 
himself  a  Socialist. 

Professor  Menger  of  Vienna  has  given  so  clear 
a  statement  of  the  main  Socialist  theory,  that  I 
cannot  do  better  than  summarise  it  here: 

"The  Socialist,  or  Popular  Labour,  State,"  he 
says  in  substance,  "  rests  on  the  fundamental 
notion  that  its  primary  object  is  identical  with 
the  primary  object  of  each  citizen,  and  this  is,  the 
preservation  and  development  of  the  life  of  the 
individual  and  the  propagation  of  the  race.  But 
in  order  that  the  State  may  be  able  to  fulfil  this 
object,  it  must  control  those  natural  riches  which 
are  necessary  for  the  maintenance  and  develop- 
ment of  the  individual,  instead  of  the  rights  over 
these  being  vested  in  a  certain  number  of  indi- 
viduals, as  is  now  the  case.  We  must,  however, 
distinguish  between  those  riches  which  are  not 
destroyed  by  use  and  those  which  are  destroyed 
by  use.  The  former,  when  controlled  by  indi- 
viduals, bring  about  the  present  economic  superi- 
ority of  a  class,  with  all  the  frightful  results  we 
know  so  well:  the  latter  only  concern  the  indi- 
vidual who  uses  and  destroys  them,  and  are  not 
therefore  matters  of  public  concern."  * 

And  Jaurès  writes: 

"  The  State  must  assure  to  every  citizen  with- 

'  Menger,  L'Êkit  Socialiste,  pp.  31-36  (translated  into 
French  by  Charles  Andler). 


Translator's  Introduction    xxiii 

out  exception  the  right  to  life  by  means  of  work  : 
that  is,  the  right  to  labour  and  to  the  full  product 
of  his  labour.  If  it  does  this,  it  will  satisfy  the 
most  exacting  demands  of  human  nature  and 
fulfil  its  social  duty.  But  it  has  only  one  method 
at  its  disposal.  It  must  assure  to  every  citizen  a 
part  ownership  in  the  means  of  production,  which 
will  have  become  collective  property." 


But  to  make  every  citizen  a  part  owner  in  the 
capital  of  the  community  is  only  the  first  step  in 
the  process  of  realising  social  justice.  The  next 
and  most  pressing  question  is:  "  How  shall  the 
yearly  product  of  this  socially  owned  capital  be 
divided?  How  can  the  ends  of  justice  be  best 
attained?  " 

Many  answers  to  this  question  have  of  course 
been  proposed,  but  they  may  all  be  grouped  into 
two  main  schools,  the  Socialist  proper  and  the 
Communist.     I  quote  Menger  '  : 

"  But  if  the  essence  of  Socialism  consists  only 
in  the  fact  that  the  most  important  control  over 
wealth  is  exercised  by  groups  of  men  more  or  less 
large,  instead  of  by  individuals,  we  shall  see  that 
this  system  does  not  necessarily  involve  equal 
division  of  wealth  among  the  citizens.  The 
wealth  destined  for  the  immediate  satisfaction  of 
desires  may,  even  in  the  Socialist  State,  be  divided 

'  L'État  Socialiste,  p.  35. 


xxiv    Translator's  Introduction 

unequally,  according  to  the  quality  and  quantity 
of  work  performed,  the  rank  occupied  by  each  in 
the  State,  and  many  other  factors.  The  great 
dififerences  which  we  now  see  will  disappear  of 
themselves,  since  they  result  from  the  private 
ownership  of  wealth  whose  utility  is  permanent. 
There  will  be  just  enough  inequality  to  serve  as 
a  spur  to  effort  and  a  reward  for  excellence. 

"  If,  however,  the  principle  oi  equality  be  added 
to  the  above  idea  of  the  Socialist  system.  Social- 
ism becomes  Communism.  Under  this  system  the 
amount  of  wealth  given  to  each  citizen  is  quite 
independent  of  the  quantity  and  quality  of  the 
work  he  performs  and  of  any  difference  in  the 
rank  he  has  attained."  * 

Some  Communists  hold  that  the  only  just  prin- 
ciple is  summed  up  ia  the  saying:  "  From  each 
according  to  his  ability,  to  each  according  to  his 
needs."  They  show  a  faith  in  the  altruistic  pos- 
sibilities of  human  nature  that  one  is  tempted  to 
characterise  as  visionary.  Perhaps  the  time  may 
come  when  the  average  man  will  give  his  best 
work  to  the  community  without  regard  to  the  re- 
ward he  is  to  receive  for  it,  and  will  be  contented 
when  he  sees  other  men,  less  able  and  perhaps 


'  It  should,  however,  be  noted  that  the  word  Commun- 
ism is  often  used  as  synonymous  with  Socialism.  Jaurès 
does  not  make  any  distinction,  and  Marx  and  Engels 
called  their  famous  tract  The  Communist  Manifesto, 
though  they  did  not  believe  in  the  equal  division  of  the 
product  among  all  workers. 


Translator's  Introduction     xxv 

less  industrious  than  he,  paid  at  the  same  rate. 
There  are  a  few  such  devoted  individuals  now, and 
possibly  in  the  dim  future  they  will  be  numerous 
enough  to  make  their  mental  processes  serve  as  a 
basis  for  society.  But  for  all  purposes  of  practical 
reform,  the  Socialist  principle,  in  the  strict  sense 
of  the  word,  seems  to  be  the  only  possible  one. 

The  Socialists  do  not  hope  to  distribute  wealth 
equally  among  all  the  workers,  or  on  the  basis  of 
the  needs  of  the  different  individuals:  they  hold 
that  this  would  be  extremely  inadvisable,  at  least 
without  a  long  period  of  training  under  a  system 
far  more  equitable  than  the  present  one.  What 
they  do  hope  to  do  is  to  distribute  it  in  such  a 
way  that  men  will  be  rewarded  as  nearly  as  pos- 
sible in  proportion  to  the  services  they  perform, 
and  not,  as  is  now  the  case,  partly  in  proportion 
to  the  services  they  perform  and  partly  in  propor- 
tion to  the  lien  on  other  men's  work  that  they  or 
their  fathers  have  been  able  to  establish  through 
accumulations  of  capital. 

The  practical  problem  of  how  wealth  is  to  be 
divided  in  proportion  to  the  quantity  and  quality 
of  the  work  performed  is  an  extremely  delicate 
and  difiBcult  one.  The  simplest  solution  seems  to 
be  that  each  individual  should  be  required  to  give 
a  fixed  minimum  of  work  to  the  community,  and 
that  he  should  be  paid  a  minimum  wage,  large 
enough  to  guarantee  a  good  average  "  standard 
of  life."  The  exceptionally  able  or  industrious 
man  would  contribute  more  work  and  would  be 


xxvi    Translator's  Introduction 

paid  in  proportion,  so  that  he  would  be  able  to 
provide  himself  with  some  of  the  luxuries  of  life. 
Or,if  hours  were  taken  as  the  basis  instead  of  piece- 
work, the  exceptional  man  who  wished  to  work 
longer  than  the  minimum  day  required  by  the 
State  would  be  allowed  to  do  so  and  would  be  re- 
warded accordingly-.  This  system  solves  the 
problem  of  distribution  with  quantity  as  the  de- 
termining factor.  The  factor  of  quality  is  far 
more  subtle  and  would  seem  to  involve  the  exist- 
ence of  a  judging  body  who  should  determine  the 
grade  to  which  any  given  individual  belonged. 
The  exceptional  man  would  then  be  rewarded  ac- 
cording to  the  grade  of  excellence  he  had  attained, 
which  would  be  a  rough  method  of  recognising 
merit/ 

If  we  grant  the  unequal  distribution  of  wealth, 
some  hierarchical  grouping  of  the  workers  seems 
almost  inevitable.  The  two  great  difficulties  to 
be  faced  would  be  the  possible  exaggeration  of 
the  differences  in  rewards  given  to  the  members 
of  the  different  groups  and  the  danger  of  a  cor- 
rupt official  class.  We  must  not  forget,  however, 
that  it  is  never  capital  but  only  salaries  that  are 
to  be  distributed,  and  that  the  means  of  corruption 
would  therefore  be  limited.     It  has  also  been  sug- 


'  For  a  full  discussion  of  the  question  of  distribution, 
see  Menger,  UEtat  Socialiste,  Book  II.,  chapters  vii. 
and  viii.  ;  Kelly,  Government  or  Human  Evolution, 
vol.  ii.,  pp.  298-303,  331-336;  Vandervelde,  Le  Collec- 
tivisme, Part  II.,  chapter  iv. 


Translator's  Introduction  xxvii 

gested  that  the  economy  of  a  co-operative  State 
would  allow  so  much  leisure  to  its  citizens  as 
might  result  in  a  strict  surveillance  of  politics  and 
official  methods  by  the  average  man. 

Under  the  Socialist  system  the  natural  dififer- 
ences  between  man  and  man  would  bring  their 
natural  difiFerences  in  comforts  and  pleasure,  and 
the  average  man's  mainspring  of  activity  would 
still  be  in  operation. 

But  at  this  point  we  should  note  the  classic  ob- 
jection to  Socialism.  Men,  it  is  said,  work  from 
two  motives,  first,  in  order  to  amass  wealth  for 
themselves,  and,  second,  in  order  to  hand  on  the 
fruits  of  their  labour  to  their  children.  Socialism 
would  do  away  with  both  these  motives,  and  the 
inference  is  that  men  would  no  longer  work. 

The  error  that  underlies  this  criticism  is  that  it 
is  based  on  an  observation  of  the  mental  processes 
of  the  owning  class  only.  We  have  seen  that  the 
distribution  of  wealth  under  our  present  regime  is 
such  that  the  vast  mass  of  workers  never  have 
the  faintest  hope  of  accumulating  any  wealth  for 
themselves,  while  the  idea  of  leaving  anything 
whatever  to  their  children  would  seem  to  them 
fantastic  in  the  extreme.  On  the  contrary,  they 
count  on  their  children  to  keep  them  out  of  the 
poorhouse  when  they  are  too  old  to  support 
themselves. 

It  is,  nevertheless,  true  that  under  our  capital- 
istic system  these  two  motives  are  very  generally 
active  with  the  wealthy  minority.     It  has  seemed 


xxviii  Translator's  Introduction 

to  me,  however,  that  the  first  motive,  the  desire 
to  accumulate  a  fortune  for  oneself,  is  more  subtle 
in  character  than  the  individualists  would  have 
us  believe.  After  the  first  necessities  and  com- 
forts have  been  obtained,  what  most  men  really 
want  to  get  out  of  life  is  success.  But  in  almost 
all  cases,  success  is  vulgarly  measured  in  terms 
of  wealth,  and  so  men  seek  wealth.  But  in  the 
army  and  navy,  in  art,  science,  and  literature, 
and  in  the  English  civil  service  and  English  po- 
litical life,  success  is  measured  by  the  grade  at- 
tained, by  various  rewards  and  decorations,  by 
fame  or  authority  over  others,  things  that  often 
bring  no  corresponding  increase  of  wealth  but 
that  are  as  ardently  pursued  as  wealth  itself. 
They  are  the  measure  of  success,  and,  as  such,  in- 
finitely desirable. 

As  for  the  wish  men  have  to  leave  a  fortune  to 
their  children,  this  too  may  be  attributed  to  two 
causes.  In  the  first  place,  they  want  to  know 
that  their  children  will  never  lack  the  necessities 
and  even  the  comforts  to  which  they  have  been 
accustomed.  If  they  are  "self-made"  men,  they 
understand  too  well  the  diflScult  and  precarious 
existence  of  those  who  have  to  face  life  with  no 
resource  but  their  own  skill  and  labour:  they 
wish  to  make  certain  that  their  children  have  the 
inestimably  precious  aid  of  a  certain  accumulation 
of  wealth-producing  wealth.  But  under  the 
Socialist  régime,  where  the  "right  to  life"  im- 
plies suitable  work  for  all  and  a  just  and  ample 


Translator's  Introduction    xxix 

reward  for  that  work,  with,  of  course,  proper  care 
for  those  who  are  physically  unable  to  support 
themselves,  this  natural  anxiety  on  the  part  of 
parents  would  be  removed.  Every  child  would 
have  a  fair  start  in  life,  and  no  child  would  have 
the  undue  advantage  that  comes  to  those  who, 
through  no  virtue  of  their  own,  find  themselves 
in  possession  of  a  legal  right  to  share  in  the  pro- 
duct of  the  labour  of  others.  For  this  is  the  true 
meaning  of  inheritance:  the  father  leaves  his  son 
a  lien  on  the  labour  of  other  men  which  he  him- 
self has  obtained  by  clever  management,  special 
ability,  or  even  by  a  stroke  of  luck,  the  rise  or 
fall  of  the  market,  or  the  mere  possession  of  a 
piece  of  land  whose  value  has  increased. 

The  second  reason  why  men  desire  to  leave  a 
large  fortune  is  the  same  as  that  which  makes 
them  selfishly  desire  to  amass  it:  because  it  is 
one  of  the  ways  of  gaining  distinction.  They 
imagine  a  newspaper  article:  "  So-and-So  died 
leaving  a  property  of  such  and  such  value,"  or, 
in  our  significant  phrase,  "  he  was  worth  such 
and  such  a  sum."  But  if  this  particular  scale  of 
personal  importance  were  done  away  with  alto- 
gether, men  would  turn  their  attention  to  some 
other  means  of  exalting  their  own  individuality, 
and  would  forget  that  the  publication  of  his  will 
was  ever  the  means  of  bringing  to  a  man  a  pa- 
thetically brief  post-mortem  distinction. 

No,  the  average  man  does  not  work  with  the 
idea  of  '  '  making  a  fortune,  "  or  of  "  leaving  a 


XXX      Translator's  Introduction 

fortune."  He  works  first, because  he  must  work 
in  order  to  live,  and,  second,  because  he  wishes  to 
add  to  the  present  comfort  of  himself,  his  wife, 
and  his  children,  and  perhaps  to  "  lay  by  some- 
thing against  a  rainy  day."  The  last  motive 
would  not  hold  good  in  a  Socialist  State,  but  the 
other  two  seem  a  too  essential  part  of  the  psychol- 
ogy of  "  the  man  in  the  street  "  to  be  disregarded. 
Some  scale  in  material  rewards  there  must  be, 
in  order  to  mark  degrees  of  excellence  and  add 
somewhat  to  the  comforts  of  the  especially  indus- 
trious or  especially  able  man.  But  the  difiference 
between  the  average  man  and  the  exceptional 
man  should  be  only  just  enough  to  spur  on  the 
latter  to  give  his  best  work.  And  since  the 
Socialist  State  is  founded  on  the  principles  of  jus- 
tice and  expediency,  the  community  would  see  to 
it  that  the  exceptional  man  did  not  obtain  his 
higher  reward  until  the  return  for  every  man's 
labour  was  large  enough  to  guarantee  him  a  life 
worthy  of  a  man  and  a  citizen,  a  life  lived  under 
conditions  making  for  health,  civilisation,  and  the 
improvement  of  the  race. 

VI 

There  is  also  a  division  ot  opinion  among 
Socialists  as  to  the  administrative  organisation 
which  is  to  manage  the  collectively-owned  wealth. 
Some  believe  that  the  ownership  of  the  means  of 
production  should  be  vested  in  the  nation  and 


Translator's  Introduction    xxxi 

administered  by  a  trained  bureaucracy;  others 
have  the  ideal  of  a  less  centralised  politico- 
economic  system,  under  which  the  commune  or 
township  would  be  the  principal  owner  and  em- 
ployer of  labour;  others  imagine  associations  of 
producers,  each  group  owning  and  controlling 
the  plant  at  which  it  works  itself;  while  still 
others  think  that  the  future  society  will  be  a  com- 
bination of  all  these  forms,  some  property  being 
vested  in  the  nation,  some  in  local  government 
bodies,  and  some  in  the  organised  trades.' 

It  is  interesting,  and  it  may  even  be  profitable, 
to  attempt  to  foresee   the  exact  form  that   the 


'  For  a  careful  attempt  to  study  this  question  from  the 
legal  standpoint,  see  Professor  Monger's  D État  Socialiste. 
Mr.  and  Mrs.  Sidney  Webb  have  sketched  their  idea  of 
the  probable  organisation  of  the  Democratic  State  of  the 
future  in  the  last  chapter  of  bidustrial  Detnocracy.  A 
more  popular  form  of  forecast  is  that  presented  by  the 
Fabian  Essays  on  Socialism.  Mr.  Bdmond  Kelly,  in  the 
second  volume  of  Government  or  Htiman  Evolution, 
gives  in  some  detail  another  possible  solution,  which  he 
calls  Quasi-Collectivism.  Under  this  system  the  State 
will  manufacture  the  necessities  of  life,  and  require  every 
citizen  to  work  for  it  four  hours  a  day.  During  the  re- 
mainder of  the  day  each  man  will  be  free  to  engage  in 
any  occupation  he  chooses  :  artists  will  devote  them- 
selves to  their  art  with  minds  freed  from  anxiety,  and 
energetic  business  men  will  create  supplementary  indus- 
tries on  the  competitive  plan.  Since  a  decent  livelihood 
is  assured  to  every  man  by  his  State  labour,  the  unjust 
advantage  that  purely  capitalistic  production  gives  to  the 
owner  is  done  away  with. 


xxxii   Translator's  Introduction 

juster  social  organism  will  assume.  It  tends  to 
clear  up  the  ideas  of  Socialists  themselves  and 
may  possibly  serve  as  a  stimulus  to  the  imagina- 
tion of  those  who  dismiss  the  subject  by  saying: 
"  Oh,  yes,  all  very  well  in  theory,  but  I  can't 
imagine  how  you  can  put  all  that  into  practice." 
But  such  discussions  have,  after  all,  an  interest 
which  is  chiefly  academic:  they  cannot  become 
of  practical  moment  for  many  years. 

VII 

There  is,  however,  a  pressing  practical  question 
that  touches  Socialists  very  closely  and  divides 
them  very  bitterly:  this  is  the  problem  of  what 
steps  "militant"  Socialists  should  take  to  bring 
about  the  establishment  of  Socialism.  As  Jaurès 
is  continually  touching  upon  this  problem  in  the 
following  essays,  and  as  he  presupposes  a  certain 
familiarity  with  it  on  the  part  of  his  readers,  it 
may  perhaps  be  well  to  give  a  preliminary  sketch 
here. 

Upon  the  question  of  Method,  as  it  is  called, 
European  Socialists  are  separated  into  two  schools: 
the  one,  followers  of  the  great  militant,  Karl  Marx, 
are  called  Revolutionists,  Marxists,  or  Orthodox; 
the  other.  Opportunists,  Reformists,  Revisionists, 
Fabians. 

The  Revolutionary  Socialists  do  not  necessarily 
believe  in  the  use  of  force  to  obtain  their  ends. 
Indeed,  as  Jaurès  points  out,  the  partisans  of  the 


Translator's  Introduction  xxxiii 

General  Strike  are  the  only  ones  who  hope  to  win 
by  other  than  legal  political  methods.  But  what 
they  do  believe  in  is  the  possibility  of  establishing 
the  Socialist  system  in  its  entirety,  after  they  shall 
have  obtained  political  power.  They  depend 
upon  the  '  '  class- warfare  '  '  that  undoubtedly  ex- 
ists, to  bring  about  a  revolution,  possibly  peaceful 
in  character,  which  will  have  for  its  object  the 
abolition  of  private  property  in  the  means  of  pro- 
duction and  the  substitution  of  social  property  in 
its  place.  Their  method  of  action,  then,  is  to 
rouse  the  non-owners  to  a  sense  of  their  position, 
and  to  teach  them  to  look  forward  to  the  day 
when  they  shall  be  strong  enough  to  bring  about 
this  radical  change. 

This  belief  in  the  "  revolutionary  "  method  has 
two  practical  results.  In  the  first  place,  it  makes 
those  who  hold  it  indifferent  to  any  less  sweeping 
social  reforms:  they  are  working  for  complete 
political  power  and  a  complete  social  reconstruc- 
tion. In  the  second  place,  the  necessary  stress 
laid  upon  the  antagonism  of  classes  makes  them 
especially  unwilling  to  enter  into  political  alliance 
with  other  parties,  who  represent  the  owning 
class,  even  if  such  alliance  would  result  in  the 
gain  of  certain  concrete  advantages  for  the  non- 
owners. 

The  Reformists,  on  the  other  hand,  think  that 
the  coming  change  is  too  complex  to  be  instituted 
as  a  whole.  Their  ultimate  ideal  is  the  collective 
ownership  of  capital,  but  they  believe  that  they 


xxxiv  Translator's  Introduction 

can  best  reach  that  ideal  by  introducing  reforms 
gradually  as  the  strength  of  their  party  and  eco- 
nomic conditions  admit,  instead  of  hoping  to  apply 
a  cast-iron  dogmatic  system  as  a  unit.  The  de- 
tails are  too  complicated,  the  new  factors  that 
may  have  to  be  considered  in  the  field  of  industrial 
invention  alone  are  too  diverse  for  any  cut  and 
dried  revolutionary  action  to  meet  with  success. 
The  general  principle  on  which  the  Reformists 
must  act  is  clear  enough  to  them:  it  guides  them 
in  the  practical  solution  of  each  problem  as  it  pre- 
sents itself.  And  by  the  light  of  this  principle 
they  have  formulated  in  every  country  party 
programmes  which,  according  to  their  Fabian 
method,  will  be  gradually  adopted  by  the  various 
legislatures. 

These  Socialist  programmes  demand  as  a  rule 
the  same  general  reforms:  a  legal  limitation  of 
the  working  day,  a  legal  minimum  wage,  com- 
pulsory insurance  against  illness,  accidents,  and 
non-employment,  old  age  pensions,  compulsory 
arbitration  on  the  New  Zealand  pattern,  drastic 
amendment  of  factory  legislation,  especially  with 
the  object  of  abolishing  child-labour,  the  substi- 
tution of  an  income-tax  or  land-tax  for  all  in- 
direct taxation,  and,  most  important  perhaps  of 
all,  the  gradual  extension  of  the  domain  of  public 
services  (national  and  municipal),  beginning  with 
railways,  mines,  and  other  "natural  monopolies." 
Socialists  are  also  advocates  of  at  least  partial  dis- 
armament and  of  the  extension  of  international 


Translator's  Introduction    xxxv 

arbitration,  and  most  of  the  party  programmes 
contain  statements  to  that  effect.' 

It  must  not  be  supposed  that  the  orthodox 
Marxists  refuse  to  endorse  the  party  programme. 
But  whereas  the  Revolutionists  consider  legisla- 
tive reforms  as  of  secondary  importance  and  some 
extremists  even  look  at  them  askance  as  tending 
to  weaken  the  antagonism  between  the  classes, 
which  they  believe  to  be  the  essential  revolution- 
ary force,  the  Revisionists  regard  such  reforms  as 
necessary  steps  toward  the  establishment  of  com- 
plete Collectivism.  They  hold,  moreover,  that 
every  reform  is  not  only  a  positive  gain  on  the 
side  of  justice,  a  positive  advance  toward  their 
goal,  but  also  a  valuable  means  of  educating  the 

'  The  programmes  of  the  principal  European  Socialist 
parties  are  to  be  found  in  Modern  Socialism^  edited  by 
R.  C.  K.  Eusor  (Harpers).  I  quote  the  following  from 
the  platform  adopted  by  the  Socialist  Party  of  the  United 
States  of  America  at  Chicago  in  May,  1904  : 

"  To  the  end  that  the  workers  may  seize  every  possible 
advantage  that  may  strengthen  them  to  gain  complete 
control  of  the  powers  of  government,  and  thereby  the 
sooner  establish  the  co-operative  commonwealth,  the  So- 
cialist Party  pledges  itself  to  watch  and  work  in  both  the 
economic  and  the  political  struggle  for  each  successive  im- 
mediate interest  of  the  working  class  ;  for  shortened  days 
of  labour  and  increase  of  wages  ;  for  the  insurance  of  the 
■workers  against  accident,  sickness,  and  lack  of  employ- 
ment ;  for  pensions  for  aged  and  exhausted  workers  ;  for 
the  public  ownership  of  the  means  of  transportation, 
communication,  and  exchange  ;  for  the  graduated  taxa- 
tion of  incomes,  inheritances,  and  of  franchise  and  land 


xxxvi  Translator's  Introduction 

public  mind  and  preparing  the  way  for  the  next 
step. 

The  very  great  importance  attached  to  legis- 
lative action  by  Reformists  leads  naturally  to  their 
adopting  a  different  attitude  toward  practical 
politics.  They  wish  to  bring  about  certain  defin- 
ite reforms,  and  being  always  in  a  minority  they 
must,  in  order  to  accomplish  anything,  enter  into 
alliance  with  other  parties  that  are  willing  to 
carry  out  at  least  part  of  their  programme.  It  is 
over  this  question  of  alliance  that  the  battle 
within  the  party  has  raged.  How  close  shall  it 
be?  Shall  it  be  purely  temporary,  or  of  indefinite 
duration  ?  And  shall  a  Socialist  ever  be  permitted 
to  hold  ofiBce  in  a  non-Socialist  ministry  ?  These 
are  the  practical  questions  that  agitate  European 
Socialists  in  all  countries. 


values,  the  proceeds  to  be  applied  to  public  employment 
and  bettering  the  condition  of  the  workers  ;  for  the  equal 
suffrage  of  men  and  women  ;  for  the  prevention  of  the 
use  of  the  military  against  labour  in  the  settlement  of 
strikes  ;  for  the  free  administration  of  justice  ;  for  popu- 
lar government,  including  initiative,  referendum,  propor- 
tional representation,  and  the  recall  of  oflficers  by  their 
constituents  ;  and  for  every  gain  or  advantage  for  the 
workers  that  may  be  wrested  from  the  capitalist  system, 
and  that  may  relieve  the  suffering  and  strengthen  the 
hands  of  labour.  We  lay  upon  every  man  elected  to  any 
executive  or  legislative  office  the  first  duty  of  striving  to 
procure  whatever  is  for  the  workers'  most  immediate  in- 
terest, and.  for  whatever  will  lessen  the  economic  and 
political  powers  of  the  capitalist,  and  increase  the  like 
powers  of  the  worker." 


Translator's  Introduction   xxxvii 


VIII 


In  France  the  question  of  method  has  been 
complicated  by  the  political  situation.  French 
Reformists  have  been  led  into  a  particularly  close 
union  with  the  other  Republican  groups,  not  only 
because  by  these  tactics  they  can  further  the 
adoption  of  social  reforms,  but  also  because  the 
political  situation  has  demanded  such  an  alliance. 

To  a  French  political  thinker  of  the  type  of 
Jaurès  the  social  and  political  problems  are  closely 
united.  He  sees  but  two  great  parties,  the  party 
of  the  Revolution  and  the  party  of  the  Counter- 
Revolution.  The  Revolution,  according  to  this 
special  use  of  the  word,  is  not  a  sudden  upheaval 
that  took  place  a  hundred  years  ago,  or  is  to  take 
place  a  hundred  years  hence,  but  a  process  of  de- 
velopment, begun  by  those  who  claimed  political 
rights  for  all  citizens  in  1789  and  continued  by 
those  who  have  claimed  social  and  economic  rights 
for  them  ever  since.  Extreme  Marxists  like 
Guesde  and  Vaillant  do  not  have  this  sense  of  the 
unity  and  continuity  of  the  liberal  movement.  To 
them  a  moderate  liberal  Republican  is  a  natural 
enemy  and  the  tool  of  capitalism:  to  Jaurès  he  is 
a  natural  ally  and  in  a  sense  the  tool  of  Socialism, 
because  in  giving  his  best  effort  to  maintain  re- 
publican institutions  he  is  strengthening  the  foun- 
dation without  which  Socialism  must  remain  a 
purely  Utopian  ideal. 

How  continuous  and  vigilant  this  effort  of  the 


xxxviii  Translator's  Introduction 

Republicans  has  to  be,  we  in  America  can  scarcely 
imagine.  We  see  that  the  present  French  Gov- 
ernment is  liberal  and  even  radical  in  tendency, 
and  is  supported  by  a  majority  in  Parliament  and 
in  the  country,  and  we  do  not  realise  that  the  op- 
position that  confronts  it,  and  that  tries  by  every 
possible  means  to  win  over  the  public,  is  not  an 
opposition  in  the  parliamentary  sense  of  the  word, 
but  a  revolting,  a  seceding  fraction  of  the  com- 
munity, whose  aim  is  to  overthrow  the  whole 
republican  regime,  re-establish  monarchy,  and 
undo  the  work  of  the  Revolution. 

Under  these  circumstances,  it  was  natural  for 
Reformist  Socialists  and  other  Republicans  to 
unite  in  their  fight  against  the  common  enemy. 
The  Revolutionists  maintain,  however,  that  the 
union  has  been  too  close,  that  Jaurès  and  his 
friends  have  risked  merging  the  party  with  the 
other  groups  of  the  Left  and  have  lost  sight  of 
their  essentially  Socialistic  aims.  The  situation 
reached  its  climax  in  1899  with  the  entrance  of 
the  Reformist  Millerand  into  the  Waldeck-Rous- 
seau  coalition  Cabinet.  The  "Affaire  Millerand  " 
is  particularly  interesting,  as  it  has  served  as  a 
text  for  endless  arguments  on  both  sides,  and 
was  one  of  the  principal  issues  between  the  two 
wings  of  the  French  Socialist  party. 

Millerand  took  office  as  Minister  of  Commerce 
and  Industry  in  1899,  at  a  time  when  many  seri- 
ous men  thought  that  the  existence  of  the  Re- 
public was  in  danger.     When  in  office  he  three 


Translator's  Introduction    xxxix 

times  voted  against  the  Socialist  party,  and  as 
Minister  was  obliged  to  receive  the  Czar,  the 
typical  representative  of  autocracy,  when  he  came 
to  Paris.  These  acts,  the  Revolutionists  main- 
tained, fully  proved  their  contention  that  any 
alliance  between  Socialists  and  Bourgeois  could 
only  tend  to  weaken  the  position  of  the  former; 
and  they  wished  to  expel  Millerand  from  the 
part5\  The  Reformists,  while  formally  censuring 
him  for  his  anti-Socialist  votes,  pointed  with 
satisfaction  to  the  practical  reforms  he  instituted 
while  in  office,  and  argued  that  so  much  positive 
gain  justified  their  theory  that  alliance  was  a 
valuable  and  necessary  method  of  obtaining  their 
ends.* 


'  See  the  report  of  the  Bordeaux  Congress  published  by 
the  Société  Nouvelle,  Paris,  1904.  For  a  German  reform- 
ist's estimate  of  the  case,  see  Von  Vollmar's  address  deliv- 
ered in  Dresden  in  February,  1901,  and  translated  by  R. 
C.  K.  Ensor  in  Modern  Socialism.  Millerand  formulated 
and  succeeded  in  getting  passed  a  law  limiting  to  ten  i 
hours  the  working  day  in  factories  where  men,  women, 
and  children  were  employed,  and  in  the  departments 
under  his  immediate  control  as  Minister  he  instituted  the 
eight-hour  day.  He  also  established  certain  minimum  i 
conditions  for  all  labour  on  contracts  for  national  public 
works.  His  special  effort,  however,  was  given  to  the 
encouragement  and  recognition  of  organised  labour.  He  ' 
created  Labour  Councils,  the  members  of  which  are 
elected  by  organised  workers  and  organised  employers. 
These  councils  form  permament  boards  of  arbitration  and 
conciliation,  which  may  be  consulted  by  private  concerns, 
and  must  be  consulted  by  the  State,  and  they  fix  the 


xl        Translator's  Introduction 

At  the  time  these  essays  were  written  the 
Socialists  in  France  were  divided  into  several 
parties,  representing  the  extremes  of  theory  and 
action,  and  many  of  Jaurès's  arguments  are  ad- 
dressed more  to  his  Socialist  than  to  his  non- 
Socialist  opponents.  Since  then,  however,  a 
variety  of  reasons  have  made  it  possible  for  all 
factions  to  reunite  in  a  single  organisation.  The 
International  Congress  at  Amsterdam  in  1904  de- 
voted most  of  its  time  to  a  discussion  of  the  ques- 
tion of  method  and  ended  by  passing  a  resolution 
that  proclaimed  the  principle  of  class-warfare  in 
the  dogmatic  Marxist  manner,  and  was  in  effect 
a  censure  of  the  French  leader.  Jaurès  made  an 
eloquent  and  spirited  defence  of  his  policy:  he  de- 
clared that  he  was  willing  to  make  any  reasonable 
concession  in  the  interest  of  party  unity,  but  main- 
tained that  his  tactics  were  the  only  practical 
ones.  The  Congress  expressed  a  wish  that  the 
various  French  parties  would  reunite,  and  accord- 
ingly a  joint-committee  met  during  the  winter  to 
formulate  a  compromise  agreement.  In  the  mean- 
time political  conditions  changed.     The  Combes 


standard  rate  of  wages  and  hours  for  every  district,  and 
this  standard  is  at  once  applicable  to  State  contracts. 
They  also  make  annual  reports  on  the  conditions  of 
labour,  causes  of  unemployment,  enforcement  of  the  law, 
etc.  Millerand  also  introduced,  but  did  not  succeed  in 
getting  passed,  a  bill  to  regulate  industrial  disputes,  a 
moderate  adaptation  of  compulsory  arbitration  on  the 
New  Zealand  model. 


Translator's  Introduction       xli 

ministry,  that  had  been  supported  by  Jaurès,  fell, 
and  the  new  ministry  drew  its  support  from  the 
more  moderate  parties.  This  left  the  Socialists 
free  to  withdraw  from  the  group  of  Parliamentary 
Republicans.  In  April,  1905,  the  new  Socialist 
party  organisation  was  completed. 

These  events  seem  at  first  sight  like  a  step  back- 
ward, but  we  cannot  help  being  convinced  that 
the  triumph  of  the  uncompromising  element  is 
only  apparent.  The  fighting  strength  of  the 
party  is  undoubtedly  increased  by  union,  and 
Jaurès  is  too  wise  a  politician  not  to  know  when 
a  partial  surrender  will  lead  to  final  victory.  His 
belief  in  the  Reformist  method  is  of  course  un- 
shaken, but  he  is  willing  to  wait  and  be  politic, 
knowing  that  in  the  end  his  adversaries  will  be 
forced  by  the  pressure  of  events  to  follow  his  plan 
of  action.  He  towers  above  them,  secure  in  his 
larger  vision  of  history  and  conscious  of  the  great 
part  he  has  yet  to  play  in  the  politics  of  his  coun- 
try and  of  the  world. 

IX 

Jaurès  is  probably  the  most  conspicuous  and  at 
the  same  time  the  strongest  personality  in  French 
political  life  at  present.  He  is  continually  before 
the  public;  his  activity  and  versatility  seem  un- 
limited. His  personal  organ,  IJ Hiananitê^  con- 
tains almost  daily  articles  signed  by  him,  and 
represents  his  policy  in  every  department  of  life  : 
in  its  advanced  interpretation  of  social  legislation 


xlii      Translator's  Introduction 

and  social  conditions  in  general,  in  its  pacific  atti- 
tude toward  foreign  affairs,  even  in  its  criticism 
of  literature,  art,  and  the  stage.  Jaurès  is  an  in- 
tellectuel. He  graduated  at  the  head  of  his  class 
at  the  Ecole  Normale  Supérieure,  and  has  been 
twice  Professor  of  Philosophy  at  Toulouse.  Dur- 
ing an  interval  of  four  years  in  his  parliamentary 
career  he  wrote  a  history  of  the  French  Revolu- 
tion that  is  said  by  some  authorities  to  be  based 
on  a  more  careful  study  of  original  documents 
than  any  other  history  of  the  period.  But  it  is  as 
a  political  leader  and  orator  that  he  is  best  known 
and  most  successful.  He  attends  political  meet- 
ings all  over  the  country  and  wherever  he  goes  he 
communicates  some  of  his  indomitable  enthusiasm 
and  splendid  energy  to  his  hearers.  In  the  Cham- 
ber of  Deputies  he  makes  an  incredible  number  of 
fiery  and  eloquent  speeches,  hardly  ever  letting  an 
important  debate  pass  without  taking  an  active 
and  usually  a  dramatic  part,  and  never  failing  to 
secure  breathless  attention  from  friends  and  ad- 
versaries alike.  He  is  equally  at  home  denounc- 
ing the  reactionary  element  and  exalting  the  work 
of  "  Republican  Solidarity,"  pleading  the  cause 
of  sanity  and  justice  in  international  afifairs  and 
upholding  the  specifically  Socialistic  claims.  A 
cool  Anglo-Saxon  might  find  him  too  excitable 
and  emotional,  might  even  point  to  instances 
where  he  seems  to  have  allowed  his  eloquence  to  run 
away  with  his  judgment,  but  the  most  unfriendly 
critic  must  grant  his  abihty,  energy,  and  sincerity. 


Translator's  Introduction     xliii 

The  important  part  played  by  Socialism  in 
European  politics  and  by  Jaurès,  as  one  of  the 
most  prominent  European  Socialists,  seems  a 
sufiScient  excuse  for  the  translation  of  these  studies 
into  English.  They  represent  the  man  and  the 
movement  in  the  vivid  and  intimate  setting  of  the 
daily  newspaper,  and  their  very  incompleteness 
and  informality  give  them  a  certain  value  as  first- 
hand historical  documents.  They  do  not  try  to 
explain  modern  French  Socialism  to  outsiders; 
they  are  a  little  piece  of  modern  French  Socialism, 
and  as  such  I  hope  that  Americans,  whether  or 
no  they  have  Socialistic  sympathies,  will  find 
them  not  without  interest. 

I  have  omitted  from  the  original  volume  two 
short  articles  on  French  politics  and  rural  con- 
ditions, parts  of  the  essay  the  "Question  of 
Method,"  and  a  number  of  essays  dealing  with 
the  French  law  regulating  property  and  inherit- 
ance, extremely  interesting  in  themselves,  but 
not  applicable  to  countries  where  the  Napoleonic 
Code  is  not  in  force.  In  their  place  I  have  added, 
as  examples  of  quite  another  style,  an  article 
taken  from  L'Action  Socialiste,  and  the  speech 
delivered  on  the  occasion  of  the  visit  of  the  Eng- 
lish parliamentary  delegates  to  Paris;  also  an 
article  published  in  La  Petite  République,  but  not, 
so  far  as  I  know,  reprinted  elsewhere.  The  or- 
der in  which  the  essays  appear  has  also  been 
slightly  altered.  For  all  these  changes  I  have 
M.  Jaurès's  personal  authorisation. 

MlI,DRED   MiNTURN. 
Paris,  December,  1905 


SOCIAlvISM  AND  I.IFE 


THE  SOCIALIST  AIM 

The  first  condition  of  success  for  Socialism  is 
that  its  essential  characteristics  should  be  ex- 
plained clearly,  so  that  every  one  can  understand 
them.  There  are  many  misunderstandings  cre- 
ated by  our  adversaries,  and  some  created  by  our- 
selves.    We  must  do  away  with  these. 

The  main  idea  of  Socialism  is  simple  and  noble. 
Socialists  believe  that  the  present  form  of  property- 
holding  divides  society  into  two  great  classes. 
One  of  these  classes,  the  wage-earning,  the  pro- 
letariat, is  obliged  to  pay  to  the  other,  the  capi- 
talist, a  sort  of  tax,  in  order  to  be  able  to  live  at 
all,  and  exercise  its  faculties  to  any  degree.  Here 
is  a  multitude  of  human  beings,  citizens;  they 
possess  nothing,  they  can  live  only  by  their  work. 
But  in  order  to  work  they  need  an  expensive 
equipment  which  they  have  not  got,  and  raw 
materials  and  capital  which  they  have  not  got. 
Another  class  owns  the  means  of  production,  the 
land,  the  factories,  the  machines,  the  raw  ma- 
terials, and  accumulated  capital  in  the  form  of 
money.     The  first  class  is,  then,  forced  to  put 


4  Studies  in  Socialism 

itself  into  the  hands  of  the  second,  and  naturally 
this  capitalist  and  possessing  class,  taking  ad- 
vantage of  its  power,  makes  the  working  and 
non-owning  class  pay  a  large  forfeit.  It  does  not 
rest  content  after  it  has  been  reimbursed  for  the 
advances  it  made  and  has  repaired  the  wear  and 
tear  on  the  machinery.  It  levies  in  addition 
every  year  and  indefinitely  a  considerable  tax  on 
the  product  of  the  workman  and  farmer  in  the 
form  of  rent  for  farms,  ground  rent,  rent  of  land 
in  the  cities,  taxes  for  the  payment  of  the  public 
debt,  industrial  profit,  commercial  profit,  and  in- 
terest on  stocks  and  bonds. 

Therefore,  in  our  present  society,  the  work  of 
the  workers  is  not  their  exclusive  property.  And 
since,  in  our  society  founded  on  intensive  produc- 
tion, economic  activity  is  an  essential  function  of 
every  human  being,  since  work  forms  an  integral 
part  of  personality,  the  proletarian  does  not  own 
his  own  body  absolutely.  The  proletarian  alien- 
ates a  part  of  his  activity,  that  is,  a  part  of  his 
being,  for  the  profit  of  another  class.  The  rights 
of  man  are  incomplete  and  mutilated  in  him.  He 
cannot  perform  a  single  act  of  his  life  without 
submitting  to  this  restriction  of  his  rights,  this 
alienation  of  his  very  individuality.  He  has 
hardly  left  the  factory,  the  mine,  or  the  yard, 
where  part  of  his  effort  has  been  expended  in  the 
creation  of  dividends  and  profits  for  the  benefit  of 
capital,  he  has  hardly  gone  back  to  the  poor  tene- 
ment where  his  family  is  huddled  together,  when 


The  Socialist  Aim  5 

he  is  face  to  face  with  another  tax,  other  dues  in 
the  shape  of  rent.  And  besides  this,  State  taxa- 
tion in  all  its  forms,  direct  taxation  and  indirect 
taxation,  pares  down  his  already  twice-diminished 
wage,  and  this  not  only  to  provide  for  the  legiti- 
mate running  expenses  of  a  civilised  society  and 
for  the  advantage  of  all  its  members,  but  to  guar- 
antee the  crushing  payment  of  interest  on  the 
public  debt  for  the  profit  of  that  same  capitalist 
class,  or  for  the  maintenance  of  armaments  at 
once  formidable  and  useless.  When,  finally,  the 
proletarian  tries  to  buy,  with  the  remnant  of 
wages  left  to  him  after  these  inroads,  the  com- 
modities which  are  necessities  of  daily  life,  he  has 
two  courses  open  to  him.  If  he  lacks  time  or 
money,  he  will  turn  to  a  retail  dealer,  and  will 
then  have  to  bear  the  expense  of  a  cumbrous  and 
unnecessary  organisation  of  intermediary  agents; 
or  else  he  may  go  to  a  great  store,  where  over  and 
above  the  direct  expenses  of  management  and  dis- 
tribution he  has  to  provide  for  the  profit  of  ten  or 
twelve  per  cent,  on  the  capital  invested.  Just  as 
the  old  feudal  road  was  blocked  and  cut  up  at 
every  step  by  toll-rights  and  dues,  so,  for  the  pro- 
letarian, the  road  of  life  is  cut  up  by  the  feudal 
rights  imposed  upon  him  by  capital.  He  can 
neither  work  nor  eat,  clothe  nor  shelter  himself, 
without  paying  a  sort  of  ransom  to  the  owning 
and  capitalist  class. 

And  not  only  his  life  but  his  very  liberty  suffers 
by  this  system.     If  labour  is  to  be  really  free,  all 


6  Studies  in  Socialism 

the  workers  should  be  called  upon  to  take  part  in 
the  management  of  the  work.  They  should  have 
a  share  in  the  economic  government  of  the  shop, 
just  as  universal  suffrage  gives  them  a  share  in 
the  political  government  of  the  city.  Now,  in  the 
capitalist  organisation  of  labour,  the  labourers 
play  a  passive  rôle.  They  neither  decide,  nor  do 
they  help  in  deciding,  what  work  shall  be  done 
nor  in  what  direction  available  energies  shall  be 
employed.  Without  their  consent,  and  often  even 
without  their  knowledge,  the  capital  which  they 
have  created  undertakes  or  abandons  this  or  that 
enterprise.  They  are  the  "  hands"  of  the  capi- 
talist system,  only  required  to  put  into  execution 
the  schemes  that  capital  alone  has  decided  on. 
And  the  proletariat  accomplishes  these  enterprises 
planned  and  willed  by  capital  under  the  direction 
of  chiefs  selected  by  capital.  So  that  the  workers 
neither  co-operate  in  determining  the  object  of  the 
work  nor  in  regulating  the  mechanism  of  author- 
ity under  which  the  work  is  performed.  In  other 
words,  labour  is  doubly  enslaved,  since  it  is  di- 
rected towards  ends  which  it  has  not  willed  by 
means  which  it  has  not  chosen.  And  so  the 
same  capitalist  system  which  exploits  the  labour 
power  of  the  workman  restricts  the  liberty  of  the 
labourer.  Thus  the  personality  of  the  proletarian 
is  lessened  as  well  as  his  substance. 

But  this  is  not  all.  The  capitalist  and  owning 
class  is  only  a  class  apart  when  considered  in  re- 
lation to  the  wage  earners.     It  is  itself  divided 


The  Socialist  Aim  7 

and  torn  by  the  bitterest  competition.  It  has 
never  been  able  to  organise  itself,  and  in  so  doing 
to  control  production  and  regulate  it  according 
to  the  variable  needs  of  society.  In  this  state  of 
anarchical  disorder,  capital  is  only  warned  of  its 
mistakes  through  crises,  the  terrible  conseqiiences 
of  which  often  fall  upon  the  proletariat.  So,  by 
the  extreme  of  injustice,  the  working  classes  are 
socially  responsible  for  the  carrying  on  of  produc- 
tion which  they  have  no  share  in  regulating. 

To  have  responsibility  without  authority,  to  be 
punished  without  having  been  even  consulted, 
such  is  the  paradoxical  fate  of  the  proletariat 
under  the  capitalist  disorder.  And  if  capital  were 
organised,  if  by  means  of  vast  trusts  it  were  able 
to  regulate  production,  it  would  only  regulate  it 
for  its  own  profit.  It  would  abuse  the  power 
gained  by  union  to  impose  usurious  prices  on  the 
community  of  buyers,  and  the  working  class 
would  escape  from  economic  disorder  only  to  fall 
under  the  yoke  of  monopoly. 

All  this  misery,  all  this  injustice  and  disorder 
result  from  the  fact  that  one  class  monopolises  the 
means  of  production  and  of  life,  and  imposes  its 
law  on  another  class  and  on  society  as  a  whole. 
The  thing  to  do,  therefore,  is  to  break  down  this 
supremacy  of  one  class.  The  oppressed  class 
must  be  enfranchised,  and  with  it  the  whole  of 
society.  All  diiference  of  class  must  be  abol- 
ished by  transferring  to  the  whole  body  of  citizens, 


8  Studies  in  Socialism 

the  organised  community,  the  ownership  of  the 
means  of  production  and  of  life  which  to-da}',  in 
the  hands  of  a  single  class,  is  a  power  of  exploitation 
and  oppression.  The  universal  co-operation  of  all 
citizens  must  be  substituted  for  the  disorderly  and 
abusive  rule  of  the  minority.  This  is  the  only 
method  by  which  the  individual  can  be  enfranch- 
ised. And  that  is  why  the  essential  aim  of  Social- 
ism, whether  Collectivist  or  Communist,  is  to 
transform  capitalist  property  into  social  property. 

In  the  present  state  of  humanity,  where  our 
only  organisation  is  on  the  basis  of  nationality, 
social  property  will  take  the  form  of  national 
property.  But  the  action  of  the  proletariat  will 
assume  more  and  more  an  international  character. 
The  various  nations  that  are  evolving  toward 
Socialism  will  regulate  their  dealings  with  each 
other  more  and  more  according  to  the  principles 
of  justice  and  peace.  But  for  a  long  time  to  come 
the  nation  as  such  will  furnish  the  historical  set- 
ting of  Socialism;  it  will  be  the  mould  in  which 
the  new  justice  will  be  cast. 

Let  no  one  be  astonished  that  we  bring  forward 
the  idea  of  a  national  community  now,  whereas  at 
first  we  set  ourselves  to  establish  the  liberty  of  the 
individual.  The  nation,  and  the  nation  alone, 
can  enfranchise  all  citizens.  Only  the  nation  can 
furnish  the  means  of  free  development  to  all. 
Private  associations,  temporary  and  limited  in 
character,  can  protect  limited  groups  of  individ- 
uals only  for  a  time.     But  there  is  only  one  uni- 


The  Socialist  Aim  9 

versai  association  than  can  guarantee  the  rights  of 
all  individuals  without  exception,  not  only  the 
rights  of  the  living,  but  of  those  who  are  yet 
unborn,  and  who  will  take  their  places  in  the 
generations  to  come.  Now  this  universal  and 
imperishable  association  which  includes  all  the 
individuals  on  a  particular  portion  of  the  planet, 
and  which  extends  its  action  and  its  thought  to 
successive  generations,  is  the  nation. 

If,  then,  we  invoke  the  nation,  we  do  so  in 
order  to  insure  the  rights  of  the  individual  in  the 
fullest  and  most  universal  sense.  Not  a  single 
human  being  for  a  single  moment  of  time  should 
be  excluded  from  the  sphere  of  rights.  Not  one 
should  be  in  danger  of  becoming  the  prey  or 
the  instrument  of  another  individual.  Not  one 
should  be  deprived  of  the  sure  means  of  labour- 
ing freely  without  servile  dependence  on  any 
other  individual. 

In  the  nation,  therefore,  the  rights  of  all  indi- 
viduals are  guaranteed,  to-day,  to-morrow,  and 
for  ever.  If  we  transfer  what  was  once  the  prop- 
erty of  the  capitalist  class  to  the  national  com- 
munity, we  do  not  do  this  to  make  an  idol  of  the 
nation,  or  to  sacrifice  to  it  the  liberty  of  the  indi- 
vidual. No,  we  do  it  that  the  nation  may  serve 
as  a  common  basis  for  all  individual  activities. 
Social  rights,  national  rights,  are  only  the  geo- 
metric locus  of  the  rights  of  all  the  individuals. 

Social  ownership  of  property  is  merely  oppor- 
tunity of  action  brought  within  the  reach  of  all. 


II 

SOCIALISM  AND  LIFE 

The  domination  of  one  class  is  an  attempt  to 
degrade  humanity.  Socialism,  which  will  abolish 
all  primacy  of  class  and  indeed  all  class,  elevates 
humanity  to  its  highest  level.  It  is  therefore  a 
duty  for  all  men  to  be  Socialists. 

Let  no  one  object,  as  do  some  Socialists  and 
Positivists,  that  it  is  useless  and  childish  to  in- 
voke justice,  that  justice  is  a  metaphysical  concep- 
tion, susceptible  of  being  twisted  in  any  direction, 
and  that  all  tyrannies  have  fashioned  a  cloak  for 
themselves  from  this  same  worn-out  purple.  No, 
in  modern  society  the  word  "justice"  is  taking 
on  an  ever  larger  and  more  definite  meaning.  It 
has  come  to  signify  that  in  every  man,  in  every 
individual,  humanity  ought  to  be  fully  respected 
and  exalted  to  its  complete  stature.  Now  true 
humanity  can  only  exist  where  there  is  independ- 
ence, active  exercise  of  the  will,  free  and  joyous 
adaptation  of  the  individual  to  the  whole.  Where 
men  are  dependent  on  the  favour  of  others,  where 
individual  wills  do  not  co-operate  freely  in  the 
work  of  society,  where  the  individual  submits  to 


Socialism  and  Life  ii 

the  law  of  the  whole  under  compulsion  or  by  force 
of  habit,  and  not  from  reason  alone,  there  human 
nature  is  degraded  and  mutilated.  It  is  therefore 
only  by  the  abolition  of  the  reign  of  capital  and 
the  establishment  of  Socialism  that  humanity  can 
come  into  the  fulness  of  its  heritage. 

I  am  perfectly  aware  that  the  bourgeoisie  man- 
aged to  infuse  an  oligarchical  tone  and  the  spirit 
of  a  single  class  into  the  Declaration  of  the  Rights 
of  Man.  I  am  aware  that  it  tried  to  embody  in 
that  Declaration,  and  so  consecrate  for  ever,  the 
bourgeois  forms  of  property  holding,  and  that 
even  in  the  political  world  it  began  by  refusing 
the  right  of  suffrage  to  millions  of  poor,  who 
would  thus  have  become  passive  citizens.  But  I 
know  also  that  the  democrats  immediately  made 
use  of  the  theory  of  the  Rights  of  Man,  of  all  men, 
to  demand  and  to  conquer  the  right  of  universal 
suffrage.  I  know  that  they  immediately  based 
even  their  economic  demands  on  that  same  theory. 
I  know  that  the  working  class,  although  in  1789 
its  existence  as  a  self-conscious  class  was  only 
rudimentary,  did  not  hesitate  to  apply,  and  to  en- 
large, the  Rights  of  Man  in  a  proletarian  direction. 
After  1792  it  proclaimed  that  the  ownership  of  our 
own  lives  is  our  greatest  possession  and  that  the 
right  over  this  sovereign  form  of  property  should 
have  precedence  of  all  the  others.  Now  let  this 
word  "  life  "  be  boldly  expanded;  let  its  meaning 
comprise  not  bare  subsistence  only,  but  all  life,  all 
the  development  of  human  faculties,  and  it  will 


12  Studies  in  Socialism 

appear  that  Communism  itself  was  grafted  by  the 
proletariat  on  to  the  Declaration  of  the  Rights  of 
Man.  Thus  the  human  rights  proclaimed  by  the 
Revolution  instantly  took  on  a  vaster  and  deeper 
meaning  than  that  intended  by  the  revolutionary 
bourgeoisie.  That  class  was  the  upholder  of 
rights  still  too  oligarchical  and  restricted  to  cover 
the  whole  sphere  of  human  rights:  the  bed  of  the 
river  was  larger  than  the  river,  and  a  new  stream, 
the  great  proletarian  and  human  flood,  had  to  join 
it  before  the  ideal  of  justice  could  be  fulfilled  at 
last. 

Socialism  alone  can  give  its  true  meaning  to  the 
Declaration  of  the  Rights  of  Man  and  realise  the 
whole  idea  of  human  justice.  The  justice  of 
the  revolutionary  bourgeoisie  has  freed  humanity 
from  many  personal  fetters:  but  in  forcing  each 
new  generation  to  pay  a  tax  to  the  capital  accum- 
ulated by  the  generations  that  have  preceded  it, 
and  in  leaving  to  the  minority  the  privilege  of 
collecting  this  tax,  it  has  in  a  sense  mortgaged 
the  personality  of  every  living  human  being  for 
the  benefit  of  the  past  and  of  a  single  class. 

We,  on  the  contrary,  maintain  that  human 
activity  in  all  its  forms  should  have  free  access  to 
the  means  of  production  and  of  wealth  accumu- 
lated by  humanity,  so  that  humanity  as  a  whole 
may  gain  freedom  as  well  as  riches  through  the 
efforts  of  the  past.  According  to  us,  every  mem- 
ber of  society  has  henceforth  a  legal  right  to  the 
means  of  development  that  society  has  created. 


Socialism  and  Life  13 

It  is  not  then  a  human  being  in  all  his  weakness 
and  nakedness,  that  is  born  into  the  world,  a  prey- 
to  every  form  of  oppression  and  exploitation.  It 
is  a  person  with  certain  vested  rights,  who  can 
claim  for  his  perfect  development  the  free  use  of 
the  means  of  labour  that  have  been  accumulated 
by  human  effort. 

Every  human  being  has  the  right  to  his  full 
physical  and  moral  growth.  He  has  then  the 
right  to  exact  from  humanity  everything  needed 
to  supplement  his  own  effort.  He  has  the  right 
to  work,  to  produce,  and  to  create,  and  no  cate- 
gory of  mankind  should  be  able  to  exact  usury 
from  the  fruit  of  his  work,  and  bring  it  under 
their  yoke.  And  as  the  community  can  only  en- 
sure the  rights  of  the  individual  by  putting  the 
means  of  production  at  his  disposal,  the  com- 
munity itself  must  have  the  sovereign  right  of 
ownership  over  all  the  means  of  production. 

Marx  and  Engels  have  given  in  the  Comviunist 
Manifesto  a  splendid  instance  of  that  respect  for 
all  life  which  is  the  very  essence  of  Communism. 
"  In  bourgeois  society  living  labour  is  only  a 
means  of  adding  to  labour  which  has  been  ac- 
cumulated in  the  form  of  capital.  In  Communist 
society  the  accumulated  labour  of  the  past  will 
be  only  a  means  of  enlarging,  enriching,  and 
stimulating  the  life  of  the  labourers. 

"  In  bourgeois  society  the  past  dominates  the 
present.  In  the  Communist  society,  the  present 
will  dominate  the  past." 


14  Studies  in  Socialism 

The  Declaration  of  the  Rights  of  Man  had  also 
been  an  afiSrmation  of  the  dignity  of  life,  a  call  to 
life.  The  Revolution  proclaimed  the  rights  of  the 
living  man.  It  did  not  recognise  the  right  of  a 
humanity  that  was  past  and  gone  to  bind  the 
humanity  that  was  present  and  active.  It  did 
not  recognise  in  the  past  services  of  kings  and 
nobles  the  right  to  bear  heavily  on  the  present 
living  humanity,  depriving  it  of  its  full  freedom 
of  action.  On  the  contrary,  the  living  humanity 
seized  hold  of  and  appropriated  to  its  own  use  all 
that  was  vital  and  strong  in  the  legacy  of  the  past. 

The  unity  of  France,  which  had  been  the  work 
of  royalty,  became  the  decisive  instrument  of  revo- 
lution against  royalty  itself.  In  the  same  way  the 
great  forces  of  production  amassed  by  the  bour- 
geoisie will  become  the  decisive  instrument  of 
human  liberation  from  the  power  of  privileged 
capital. 

Life  does  not  destroy  the  past,  it  subdues  it  to 
its  own  ends.  The  Revolution  is  not  a  rupture, 
it  is  a  conquest.  And  when  the  proletariat  has 
conquered,  and  Communism  has  been  instituted, 
all  the  stored-up  human  effort  of  centuries  will 
become  a  sort  of  supplementary  nature,  rich  and 
beneficent,  which  will  welcome  all  human  beings 
from  the  hour  of  their  birth,  and  assure  to  them 
their  full  and  perfect  development. 

The  roots  of  Communism  strike  far  back,  then, 
even  to  the  bourgeois  conception  of  justice,  to  the 


Socialism  and  Life  15 

Declaration  of  the  Rights  of  Man  and  the  right  to 
life.  But  this  internal  logic  of  the  idea  of  right 
and  humanity  would  have  remained  dormant  and 
powerless  without  the  external  vigorous  action  of 
the  proletariat.  The  proletariat  intervened  from 
the  very  first  days  of  the  Revolution.  It  did  not 
listen  to  the  absurd  advice  of  those  who,  like 
Marat,  animated  by  the  spirit  of  class,  said  : 
"  What  are  you  doing?  Why  are  you  going  to 
seize  the  Bastille,  whose  walls  never  imprisoned 
a  working  man  ?"  It  marched  to  the  attack,  de- 
termined the  success  of  great  victories,  rushed  to 
the  frontier,  saved  the  Revolution  at  home  and 
abroad,  became  an  indispensable  power,  and 
gathered  as  it  went  the  fruits  of  its  incessant 
activity.  In  three  years,  from  1789  to  1792,  it 
transformed  a  semi-democratic  and  semi- middle- 
class  system  to  a  pure  democracy  in  which  prole- 
tarian action  was  sometimes  even  the  dominant 
factor.  Having  shown  the  strength  of  which  it 
was  capable  it  gained  self-confidence,  and  ended 
by  telling  itself,  with  Babeuf,  that  the  new  power 
it  had  created,  the  national  power  that  was  the 
common  possession  of  all,  ought  to  be  made  the 
instrument  by  whose  means  happiness  for  all 
could  be  established. 

Thus,  by  the  action  of  the  proletariat,  Com- 
munism ceased  to  be  a  vague  philosophic  specu- 
lation and  became  a  party,  a  living  force.  Thus, 
Socialism  arose  from  the  French  Revolution  under 
the  combined  action  of  two  forces,  the  force  of  the 


i6  Studies  in  Socialism 

idea  of  right,  and  the  force  of  the  new-born  activity 
of  the  proletariat.  It  is  therefore  no  longer  a 
Utopian  abstraction.  It  gushes  forth  from  the 
most  turbulent  and  effervescent  of  the  hot  springs 
of  modern  life. 

But  now,  after  many  tests,  half- victories,  and  re- 
pulses, through  the  diversities  of  various  political 
regimes^  the  new  middle-class  order  developed. 
Now,  under  the  Empire  and  the  Restoration,  the 
economic  system  of  the  bourgeoisie  based  on  un- 
limited competition  began  to  bear  its  fruit:  un- 
doubted increase  of  wealth,  but  with  it  immorality, 
trickery,  perpetual  warfare,  disorder,  and  oppres- 
sion. Fourier's  stroke  of  genius  was  to  conceive 
that  it  was  possible  to  remedy  the  confusion,  to 
purge  the  social  system  without  hampering  the 
production  of  wealth,  but  on  the  contrary  increas- 
ing it.  His  was  no  ascetic  ideal.  He  wished  for 
free  play  for  all  faculties  and  all  instincts.  The 
same  association  that  would  abolish  crises  would 
multiply  riches  by  regulating  and  combining  all 
efforts.  Thus  the  slight  cloud  of  asceticism  that 
may  have  overshadowed  Socialism  was  dispelled. 
Thus,  Socialism,  having  taken  part  with  the  pro- 
letarians of  the  Revolution  and  with  Babeuf  in  all 
the  revolutionary  life,  came  finally  into  the  great 
current  of  modern  wealth  and  production.  As 
represented  by  Fourier  and  Saint-Simon  it  appears 
at  last  as  a  power  able  not  only  to  overcome  capi- 
talism, but  to  surpass  it  in  its  own  field. 

In    the    new  order  foreseen    by   these    great 


Socialism  and  Life  17 

geniuses,  justice  will  not  be  obtained  at  the  price 
of  the  joys  of  life.  On  the  contrary,  the  just 
organisation  of  the  forces  at  the  disposition  of 
humanity  will  add  to  their  productive  power. 
The  splendour  of  wealth  will  be  a  manifestation 
of  the  triumph  of  right,  and  happiness  will  be  the 
halo  of  justice.  Babeufism  was  not  the  negation 
of  the  Revolution  but,  on  the  contrary,  its  hardiest 
pulsation.  So  Fourierism  and  Saint-Simonism 
are  not  the  negation  or  the  restriction  of  modern 
life,  but  its  passionate  fulfilment.  Everywhere, 
then.  Socialism  is  a  vital  force  moving  in  the 
direction  of  life  itself  and  in  its  fiercest  current. 

But  the  reply  of  the  bourgeoisie  under  Louis 
Philippe  to  the  great  visions  of  harmony  and 
wealth  for  all,  the  vast  constructive  conception  of 
Fourier  and  Saint-Simon,  was  a  redoubled  fury 
of  class  exploitation  by  the  exhausting  intensive 
use  made  of  the  labour  element  in  production, 
and  an  orgy  of  State  concessions,  monopolies, 
dividends,  and  premiums.  It  would  have  been 
naïve,  to  say  the  least,  to  continue  to  oppose 
idyllic  dreams  to  this  shameless  exploitation. 
The  retort  of  Proudhon  was  a  biting  criticism  of 
property,  interest,  rent  of  farms,  and  profit:  and 
here  again  the  word  which  ought  to  have  been 
spoken  was  uttered  under  the  very  dictation,  the 
sharp  inspiration,  of  life  itself. 

But  how  was  the  work  of  criticism  to  be  com- 
pleted by  the  work  of  organisation  ?  How  were 
all  the  social  elements  that  were  threatened  or 


i8  Studies  in  Socialism 

oppressed  by  the  power  of  capital,  the  banks,  and 
industrial  monopolies  to  be  united  in  one  fighting 
whole?  Proudhon  quickly  discovered  that  the 
army  of  social  democracy  was  composed  of  very 
various  elements,  that  it  was  a  mixture  of  factory- 
workers,  still  weak  in  numbers  and  power,  of  a 
lower  middle-class  composed  of  petty  manufac- 
turers and  small  tradespeople,  and  of  an  artisan 
class  which  the  absorbing  power  of  capital  was 
eying  greedily  but  had  not  yet  done  away  with. 

From  this  analysis  comes  all  that  is  hazy  and 
contradictory  in  the  positive  constructive  part  of 
Proudhon' s  work,  that  singular  mixture  of  reac- 
tion and  revolution  which  makes  him  endeavour 
on  the  one  hand  to  save  the  credit  of  the  lower 
middle-class  by  means  of  artificial  combinations, 
and  on  the  other  urge  the  creation  of  a  solid 
working  class,  the  revolutionary  power.  He 
seems  to  have  wished  to  suspend  the  action  of 
events  and  to  put  ofi^  the  revolutionary  crisis  of 
1848,  in  order  to  give  economic  evolution  time  to 
draw  its  line  of  action  more  clearly,  and  better  to 
direct  the  minds  of  men.  But  here  again,  in 
these  hesitations,  these  scruples,  even  in  the  con- 
tradictory nature  of  these  efibrts,  we  can  trace  the 
influence  of  the  intimate  contact  of  sincere  Social- 
ist thought  with  the  complex  and  still  uncertain 
reality.  It  is  the  very  life  of  modern  times  that 
again  and  again  finds  its  echo  here. 

And  now  at  last,  after  1848,  the  prime  efiective 
force  back  of  the  whole  movement  has  become 


Socialism  and  Life  19 

organised,  now  every  one  can  understand  and 
realise  it.  Now  the  growth  of  modern  industry- 
has  brought  forth  a  working  proletariat  increas- 
ingly numerous,  coherent,  and  self-conscious. 
Those  who  with  Marx  hailed  the  advent  of  this 
decisive  power,  those  who  have  understood  that 
the  world  was  to  be  transformed  by  its  means, 
have  perhaps  shown  a  tendency  to  exaggerate 
the  rapidity  of  economic  evolution.  L^ess  prudent 
than  Proudhon,  and  not  allowing  as  he  did  for  the 
power  of  resistance  and  resources  of  self-trans- 
formation in  the  class  of  small  producers,  they 
have  perhaps  over-simplified  the  problem  and  mag- 
nified the  absorbing  faculty  of  concentrated  capital. 

But  even  after  we  have  made  all  the  reservations 
and  restrictions  which  result  from  the  study  of  the 
complicated  and  many-sided  reality,  the  truth  re- 
mains that  the  proletariat  is  increasing  in  num- 
bers, that  it  represents  an  ever-growing  fraction 
of  human  societies,  and  that  it  is  gathered  to- 
gether in  always  vaster  centres  of  production;  the 
truth  remains  that  wholesale  production  has  made 
this  proletariat  ready  to  conceive  of  wholesale 
ownership  of  property,  which,  carried  to  its  logical 
conclusion,  is  social  ownership  of  property. 

Thus  Socialism,  which  in  Babeuf  may  be  called 
the  most  acute  manifestation  of  the  democratic 
Revolution;  which  in  Fourier  and  Saint-Simon 
was  the  most  splendid  enlargement  of  the  bold 
promises  of  wealth  and  power  poured  forth  by 
capital;    which  in   Proudhon   was   the  sharpest 


20  Studies  in  Socialism 

warning  given  to  the  societies  in  process  of  ex- 
tinction by  the  encroachments  of  bourgeois  oli- 
garchy,— Socialism  is  now  in  the  proletariat  and 
by  its  means  the  strongest  of  all  the  social  forces, 
the  one  that  is  continually  growing,  and  that  will 
end  by  overturning  the  equilibrium  of  society  for 
its  own  advantage,  that  is  for  the  advantage  of  hu- 
manity, of  which  it  is  now  the  highest  expression. 

No,  Socialism  is  not  an  academic  and  Utopian 
conception,  it  is  ripening  and  developing  in  closest 
touch  with  reality.  It  is  a  great  vital  force,  min- 
gled with  all  phases  of  life,  and  will  soon  be  able 
to  take  command  of  the  life  of  society.  To  the 
incomplete  application  of  justice  and  human  rights 
made  by  the  democratic  bourgeois  Revolution,  it 
has  opposed  a  full  and  decisive  interpretation  of 
the  Rights  of  Man.  To  the  incomplete,  narrow, 
and  chaotic  organisation  of  wealth  attempted  by 
capital,  it  has  opposed  a  magnificent  conception 
of  harmonised  wealth,  where  the  effort  of  each 
would  be  supplemented  by  the  co-ordinated  effort 
of  all.  To  the  hard  pride  and  selfishness  of  the 
middle  class,  narrowed  by  its  legalised  exploita- 
tion and  monopoly,  it  has  opposed  a  revolutiçn- 
ary  bitterness,  an  irritating  and  vengeful  irony;  a 
deadly  implacable  analysis  that  dispels  lies  and 
sophistries.  And  finally,  to  the  social  supremacy 
of  capital  it  has  opposed  the  class  organisation  of 
the  ever-growing  and  strengthening  proletariat. 

How  can  the  regime  of  class  persist  when  the 
oppressed  and  exploited  class   grows   daily    in 


Socialism  and  Life  21 

numbers,  in  cohesion,  and  in  self-consciousness, 
and  when  it  has  determined  with  daily  increasing 
firmness  to  have  done  for  ever  with  class  owner- 
ship of  property  ? 

Now  at  the  same  time  that  the  real  substantial 
forces  back  of  Socialism  are  growing  and  develop- 
ing, the  technical  means  of  turning  Socialism 
from  a  theory  to  a  practical  fact  are  also  defining 
themselves.  If  we  look  at  the  national  organisa- 
tion we  see  that  it  is  constantly  becoming  more 
unified,  and  more  clearly  sovereign,  and  that  it 
has  been  forced  to  take  on  more  and  more  eco- 
nomic functions,  which  we  must  hail  as  a  sort  of 
rude  prelude  to  the  social  property  of  the  future. 
In  the  great  urban  and  industrial  centres  we  see 
that  the  questions  of  hygiene,  housing,  lighting, 
education,  and  food  are  bringing  the  democracy 
into  ever  closer  touch  with  the  whole  problem  of 
property  and  into  the  administration  of  that  part 
of  property  which  is  already  collective.  Most  im- 
portant again  is  the  growing  co-operative  move- 
ment, including  as  it  does  co-operatives  for  both 
production  and  distribution.  And  finally,  we 
have  the  labour  and  professional  organisations, 
that  are  growing,  changing,  and  becoming  more 
complicated  and  elastic  all  the  time:  trade-unions, 
federations  of  unions,  central  trade  committees, 
federations  of  trades,  and  federations  of  labour. 

We  have,  then,  reached  a  point  where  it  can  be 
safely  asserted  that  the  substitute  for  the  privileges 
of  capital  is  not  to  be  the  depressing  monotony 


22  Studies  in  Socialism 

of  a  centralised  bureaucracy.  No,  the  nation, 
in  which  is  vested  the  sovereign  social  right  of 
property,  will  have  numberless  agents — local  gov- 
ernment units,  co-operative  societies,  and  trade- 
unions — which  will  give  the  freest  and  supplest 
movement  to  social  property,  in  harmony  with 
the  mobility  and  variety  of  individual  forces. 
There  is  then  a  practical  technical  preparation  for 
Socialism  just  as  there  is  an  intellectual  and  social 
preparation.  They  are  children  who,  carried 
away  by  the  magnitude  of  the  work  already  ac- 
complished, think  that  all  that  is  now  necessary 
is  a  decree,  a  Fiat  hix,  of  the  proletariat  to  make 
the  Socialist  world  rise  up  forthwith.  But  on  the 
other  hand  they  are  senseless  who  do  not  see  the 
irresistible  power  of  evolution  which  condemns 
the  unjust  ascendency  of  the  middle  class  and 
the  whole  class  system  to  extinction. 

It  will  be  the  intellectual  shame  of  the  Radical 
party  not  to  have  answered  the  great  problem  that 
weighs  on  us  all  in  any  other  way  than  by  enun- 
ciating the  equivocal  electioneering  formula, 
"  Maintenance  of  private  property."  The  formula 
will  undoubtedly  serve  for  some  time  longer  to 
rouse  ignorance,  terror,  and  selfishness  in  opposi- 
tion to  Socialism.  But  it  will  kill  the  party  that 
is  driven  to  make  use  of  it. 

Either  it  signifies  nothing,  or  it  is  the  expres- 
sion of  the  narrowest  social  conservatism.  It 
cannot  long  hold  out  either  against  science  or 
against  democracy. 


Ill 

THE  RADICALS  AND   PRIVATE 
PROPERTY 

Democracy,  under  the  impetus  given  it  by 
organised  labour,  is  evolving  irresistibly  toward 
Socialism,  toward  a  form  of  property  which  will 
deliver  man  from  his  exploitation  by  man,  and 
bring  to  an  end  the  régime  of  class  government. 
The  Radicals  flatter  themselves  that  they  can  put 
a  stop  to  this  movement  by  promising  the  work- 
ing classes  some  reforms  and  by  proclaiming 
themselves  the  guardians  of  private  property. 
They  hope  to  hold  a  large  part  of  the  proletariat 
in  check  by  a  few  reforming  laws  expressing  a 
sentiment  of  social  solidarity,  and  by  their  policy 
of  defending  private  property  to  rouse  the  con- 
servative forces,  the  petty  bourgeoisie,  the  mid- 
dle-classes, and  the  small  peasant-proprietors,  to 
oppose  Socialism. 

In  the  first  place,  to  subscribe  to  such  formulas 
as  these  means  a  real  intellectual  falling  off  for  a 
part  of  the  democracy.  How  can  men  as  culti- 
vated as  M.  Léon  Bourgeois  and  M.  Camille 
Pelletan  find  any  sense  in  the  declaration  of  the 
23 


24  Studies  in  Socialism 

Radical  party  that  afi5rms  "  the  maintenance  of 
private  property"?  Used  in  this  general  and 
abstract  fashion  the  phrase  "private  property" 
has  no  meaning  whatever. 

In  the  course  of  human  evolution  private  prop- 
erty has  many  times  changed  its  form  and  its 
substance,  its  meaning  and  its  scope. 

In  the  societies  that  preceded  ours  private 
property  embodied  itself  in  forms  of  oppression 
which  have  been  definitely  abolished  once  for  all. 
Slavery  was  one  of  the  forms  of  private  property. 
In  Athens  and  Rome  there  were  public  slaves, 
slaves  of  the  city  or  the  state;  but  most  of  the 
slaves  were  simply  a  part  of  the  patrimony  of  the 
citizens.  The  property  in  slaves  was  part  of 
private  property.  The  slaves  either  cultivated 
the  lands  of  their  Greek  or  Roman  master  or  they 
laboured  for  his  profit  in  the  city  workshops. 
Individuals  owned  them,  disposed  of  them,  forced 
them  to  labour,  gave  them  away  as  presents,  sold 
them,  or  left  them  to  their  heirs.  And  in  the 
same  way,  when,  after  the  collapse  of  the  ancient 
society  and  the  Roman  regime  founded  on  con- 
quest, slavery  was  ameliorated  and  became  serf- 
dom, the  serfs,  too,  bound  to  the  land,  were 
objects  of  certain  private  property  rights.  Under 
the  Merovingian  and  Carlovingian  kings  there 
were  royal  slaves  attached  to  the  royal  lands,  and 
Church  slaves  attached  to  the  Church  lands,  but 
the  immense  majority  of  the  serfs  belonged  to 
lords  who  were  in  the  end  practically  great  landed 


Radicals  and  Private  Property    25 

proprietors  with  a  personal  property  right  in  their 
possessions. 

During  the  Middle  Ages,  from  the  tenth  to  the 
fourteenth  century,  serfdom  was  really  established 
as  one  of  the  forms  of  what  we  call  to-day  private 
property.  It  was  the  lord  who  disposed  of  the 
labour  of  the  serf.  Agricultural  serfs,  thinly  scat- 
tered over  the  great  rural  domains,  and  industrial 
serfs,  bakers,  smiths,  goldsmiths,  spinners,  and 
weavers,  gathered  together  in  the  outbuildings  of 
the  seignorial  mansion,  all  these  were  under  the 
domination  of  an  individual;  they  were  included 
in  his  property  and  sold  by  him  with  the  estate. 
They  were,  like  the  land  itself,  like  the  fields,  the 
vineyards,  the  cattle,  one  of  the  objects  upon 
which  the  right  of  private  property  was  exercised. 

I  understand,  of  course,  that  slavery  and  serf- 
dom have  been  eliminated  from  private  property. 
But  can  the  Radicals  be  certain  that  every  element 
of  servitude,  oppression,  and  injustice  has  also 
disappeared  ?  And  what  right  have  they  to  use 
the  phrase  "  private  property  "  in  a  general  and 
abstract  fashion  when  the  elemental  meaning  of 
the  words  varies  with  the  very  advance  of  his- 
tory? Formulas  like  these  are  the  negation  of 
historic  evolution.  They  condemn  the  party  who 
adopts  them  to  see  nothing  and  to  understand 
nothing.  They  put  it  outside  the  pale  of  science 
and  of  vital  action. 

Just  as  in  ancient  times  private  property  ad- 


26  Studies  in  Socialism 

mitted  slavery  and  as  in  the  Middle  Ages  it  was 
compatible  with  serfdom,  so  to-day  it  allows  the 
wages  system.  I  am  far  from  wishing  to  divert 
myself  with  the  melancholy  reactionary  paradox 
of  those  Socialists  who  say  that  the  slave  and  the 
serf  were  happier  than  the  wage  earner.  The 
moral  and  material  position  of  the  modern  work- 
man is  as  a  whole  superior  to  that  of  the  slave  or 
the  serf.  We  are  not  talking  about  that.  I 
simply  maintain  that  to-day  private  property  is 
embodied  in  the  capitalist  form  which  permits  a 
minority  of  privileged  individuals  to  dispose  of 
the  work,  the  strength,  and  the  health  of  the 
working  classes,  and  to  levy  on  them  a  perpetual 
tribute.  And  I  maintain  that  when  the  Radicals 
declare  in  a  summary  fashion  that  they  wish  to 
uphold  private  property,  either  the  declaration 
has  no  meaning  at  all,  or  it  means  that  they  want 
to  uphold  capitalistic  property. 

Whoever,  in  Greece  or  Rome,  had  simply  an- 
nounced that  he  wished  to  maintain  private 
property,  would  have  announced  himself  an  up- 
holder of  slavery.  Whoever,  during  the  Middle 
Ages,  had  simply  announced  that  he  wished  to 
maintain  private  or  personal  property,  would  have 
upheld  at  the  same  time  serfdom  and  feudalism. 
And  to-day,  when  the  Radicals,  in  a  generalised 
formula,  announce  to  the  world  that  they  wish  to 
maintain  private  property  against  our  attacks 
upon  it,  they  constitute  themselves  from  that 
moment  the  guardians  of  capitalist  property. 


Radicals  and  Private  Property    27 

But  how  empty  of  true  significance  all  these 
abstract  formulas  are  !  They  do  not  merely  re- 
strict our  conception  of  the  evolution  of  private 
property  when  the  thing  itself  is  constantly 
changing;  they  also  simplify  it  arbitrarily.  For 
from  age  to  age  private  property  not  only  changes 
its  meaning  but  also  varies  immensely  in  the  mat- 
ter of  greater  or  less  complexity.  Sometimes  it  is 
applied  to  social  relations  that  are  extremely  com- 
plex; again  it  seems  to  become  more  simplified. 
There  are  periods  when  human  progress  necessi- 
tates a  complex  notion  of  property;  there  are 
periods  when  it  necessitates  a  simple  one. 

When  slavery  was  changed  to  serfdom,  property 
became  more  complex.  The  relations  between 
master  and  slave  were  of  a  brutal  simplicity. 
Then,  in  the  Middle  Ages,  when  the  serf  had  a 
family  and  a  patrimony,  the  master  could  not 
dispose  of  him  so  simply.  The  private  property 
rights  of  the  master  in  the  serf  are  harder  to  de- 
fine, less  simple  than  the  rights  of  the  master  in 
the  slave.  Human  personality,  which  may  be  said 
to  have  been  often  non-existent  in  the  slave  and 
which  was  more  evident  in  the  serf,  complicated 
the  property  relation;  it  introduced  varied  and 
uncertain  elements  into  the  conception  of  private 
property.  And  in  this  case,  complexity  certainly 
marks  a  step  in  advance.  On  the  other  hand,  at 
the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century,  when  the  mo- 
ment came  for  the  middle  classes  and  the  peasants 


28  Studies  in  Socialism 

to  give  the  death-blow  to  the  feudal  system,  the 
Revolution  tended  to  simplify  and  not  to  compli- 
cate property  relations.  It  freed  industrial  prop- 
erty from  the  binding  complications  of  the  guild 
system.  It  freed  agricultural  property  from  the 
enormous  entanglement  of  feudal  and  ecclesiasti- 
cal dues.  The  bourgeois  and  the  peasant  were 
more  distinctly,  more  absolutely  owners,  than 
they  were  under  the  feudal  regime  ;  and  at  that 
time,  during  the  transition  from  feudalism  to 
capitalism,  the  apparent  simplification  of  property 
was  a  sign  of  human  progress,  just  as,  twelve 
centuries  before,  the  complication  of  property  had 
been  a  sign  of  human  progress. 

I  read  with  absorbing  interest  the  excellent 
work  recently  published  by  Giard  and  Brière,  in 
which  M.  Henri  See  traces  the  history  of  the  rural 
classes  and  the  regime  of  the  great  landed  estates 
in  France  in  the  Middle  Ages.  He  brings  out 
forcibly  the  changing  complexity  and  perpetual 
transformation  of  property. 

"  It  also  appears  to  be  certain,"  he  says  in  his 
conclusion,  "  that  in  mediaeval  times  men  had  a 
conception  of  property  distinctly  different  from 
the  one  with  which  we  are  familiar.  We  see,  at 
one  and  the  same  time,  rights  over  the  land  exer- 
cised by  the  overlord,  the  vassal,  and  the  tenant. 
The  peasant  who  inherits  his  rights  of  tenure 
may  be  in  a  certain  sense  considered  as  a  pro- 
prietor; if  the  rights  of  the  lord  were  removed, 
the  laud  he  cultivates  would  belong  to  him  with- 


Radicals  and  Private  Property    29 

out  restriction.  The  rights  of  user,  exercised  col- 
lectively by  the  inhabitants  of  any  given  estate, 
might  be  regarded  in  some  respects  as  property. 
That  is  to  say  that  property,  in  the  Middle  Ages, 
had  a  much  more  complex  character,  much  less 
abstract  and  clearly  defined  than  in  our  day.  Far 
from  being  immovable,  the  conception  of  property 
has  been  modified  in  the  course  of  the  coiturieSy  and 
there  is  no  doubt  that  it  will  be  further  modified  in 
the  future,  that  it  will  follow  economic  and  social 
phenomejia  i?i  their  evolution.'''' 

There  is  the  broad  and  far-reaching  conclusion 
to  which  the  French  historians  are  more  and  more 
tending.  What  force  can  the  scholastic  and  child- 
ish formula  of  the  Radicals  have  when  confronted 
with  the  sovereign  findings  of  history  and  this 
living  evolution  of  the  conception  of  property  ? 
Just  as  it  has  been  modified  in  the  past  the  con- 
ception of  property  will  be  modified  again;  and  it 
is  certain  that  it  is  now  going  to  evolve  in  the 
direction  of  greater  complication,  of  richer  com- 
plexity. A  new  force  has  to  be  reckoned  with,  a 
force  which  is  going  to  complicate  and  transform 
all  social  relations,  the  whole  property  system. 
This  new  force  is  the  human  individual. 

For  the  first  time  since  the  beginning  of  history, 
man  claims  his  rights  as  a  man,  all  his  rights. 
The  workman,  the  proletarian,  the  man  who  owns 
nothing,  is  affirming  his  own  individuality.  He 
claims  everything  that  belongs  properly  to  a  man, 
the  right  to  life,  the  right  to  work,  the  right  to 


30  Studies  in  Socialism 

the  complex  development  of  his  faculties,  to  the 
continuous  exercise  of  his  free-will  and  of  his 
reason.  Under  the  double  action  of  democratic 
life  which  has  wakened  or  strengthened  in  him 
the  pride  of  a  man,  and  of  modern  industry  which 
has  given  to  united  labour  a  consciousness  of  its 
power,  the  workman  is  becoming  a  person,  and 
insists  upon  being  treated  as  such,  everywhere 
and  always.  Well ,  society  cannot  guarantee  him 
the  right  to  work  or  the  right  to  life,  it  cannot 
promote  him  from  the  condition  of  a  passive 
wage  earner  to  that  of  a  free  co-operator,  without 
itself  entering  into  the  domain  of  property.  Social 
property  has  to  be  created  to  guarantee  private 
property  in  its  real  sense,  that  is,  the  property 
that  the  human  individual  has  and  ought  to  have 
in  his  own  person. 

Thus  a  social  property  right  comes  into  being, 
for  the  benefit  of  the  workers,  and  this  right  is 
extended  to  the  many  associations,  local  govern- 
ment units  {comi?iunes),  trade-unions,  and  co- 
operative societies,  which,  being  in  close  touch 
with  the  individual,  are  able  to  protect  his  rights 
and  guarantee  his  newly-won  freedom  of  action 
more  effectively  and  with  greater  suppleness  than 
the  nation  could.  In  place,  then,  of  the  relatively 
simple  and  brutal  capitalistic  form  of  property, 
will  be  substituted  an  infinitely  complex  form, 
where  the  social  right  of  the  nation  will  serve  as 
guaranty,  by  the  intermediary  of  many  local  or 


Radicals  and  Private  Property    31 

professional  groups,  to  the  essential  rights  of 
every  human  being,  the  free  play  of  all  activities. 
Every  capitalistic  element  will  have  disappeared  ; 
no  man  will  be  able  to  make  use  of  another  man 
to  create  dividends  for  himself,  or  profit,  or  an  in- 
come, or  rent. 

But  the  new  property  in  its  vast  complexity, 
national,  communal,  corporate,  co-operative,  will 
be,  at  the  same  time,  individual;  because  no  in- 
dividual will  be  handed  over  to  the  tyranny  of 
another  individual  or  the  tyranny  of  a  group  or 
of  the  nation;  and  the  rights  of  each  man  will  be 
guaranteed  by  contracts  at  once  supple  and  pre- 
cise, which,  until  common  property  is  established, 
will  represent  private  property  in  its  final  purged 
form. 

So  will  be  verified  the  conclusion  of  the  his- 
torian, that  our  conception  o'f  property  is  to 
undergo  still  further  modifications.  And  in  this 
sense  there  is  not  a  single  searcher  after  truth, 
not  a  single  scholar  who  is  not  working  to  prove 
the  puerility  of  the  Radical  formula.  In  M.  See's 
volume  I  read  the  long  list  of  men  of  science,  his- 
torians, workers  in  the  archives  and  in  the  ancient 
charters,  who  have  either  gathered  together  or  ar- 
ranged or  interpreted  the  documents  he  has  used. 
And  undoubtedly,  among  those  men,  there  must 
be  many  who  belong,  or  who  think  they  belong, 
to  the  Conservative  party,  some  even  to  the  party 
of  reaction.  But  all,  no  matter  what  their  per- 
sonal theories  are,  no  matter  what  faith  they  hold, 


32  Studies  in  Socialism 

all  are  serving  the  cause  of  evolution,  in  other 
words,  at  the  present  moment,  the  cause  of  Social- 
ism; because  they  do  not  stop  at  the  surface  of 
history  but  penetrate  to  the  depths,  and  because 
they  reveal  to  mankind  the  eternal  motion  that  is 
continually  breaking  up  and  remoulding  property 
according  to  new  forms  and  new  laws.  And  it  is 
impossible  that  these  studies  of  the  great  scholars 
should  not  penetrate  gradually,  through  inter- 
mediaries, even  to  the  middle-class  youth. 

So  when  the  Radicals,  hoping  to  put  a  stop  to, 
or  at  least  impede,  the  movement  of  working-class 
emancipation,  speak  of  the  thing  that  they,  in 
their  scholastic  jargon,  C2M  private  property^  they 
will  find  themselves  the  object  on  the  one  hand 
of  the  anger  of  the  labour  democracy  which  will 
justly  take  them  to  task  for  defending  the  form 
of  capitalist  property  under  cover  of  an  ambiguous 
phrase,  and  on  the  other  of  the  disdain  of  science, 
which  will  contrast  the  reality  of  historic  evolu- 
tion with  their  abstract  and  petrified  conception 
of  property. 

The  time  is  not  far  off  when  no  one  will  be  able 
to  speak  to  the  public  about  the  preservation  of 
private  property  without  covering  himself  with 
ridicule  and  putting  himself  voluntarily  into  an 
inferior  rank.  That  which  reigns  to-day  under 
the  name  of  private  property  is  really  class 
property,  and  those  who  wish  for  the  establish- 
ment of  democracy  in  the  economic  as  well  as  the 


Radicals  and  Private  Property    33 

political  world  should  give  their  best  effort  to  the 
abolition  and  not  to  the  maintenance  of  this  class 
property. 

But  let  the  Radicals  note  this  fact.  If  their  so- 
cial formula,  "maintenance  of  private  property," 
has  become  void  and  meaningless,  this  result  has 
not  been  brought  about  by  the  example  of  the 
past  only,  or  even  by  the  irresistible  tendency  of 
new  forces  to  break  the  capitalistic  mould.  In 
bourgeois  society  itself,  in  the  bourgeois  code,' 
private  property  appears  in  such  an  incomplete 
form,  is  so  hampered,  restricted,  and  broken  up, 
that  even  now  and  from  the  point  of  view  of  the 
bourgeoisie  itself,  one  must  grant  that  it  is  either 
childishness  or  an  anachronism  to  speak  about 
"  the  maintenance  of  private  property." 

And  we  Socialists,  when  we  undertake  to  break 
up  or  gradually  absorb  capitalist  property,  will 
often  find  that  we  can  direct  the  social  movement 
toward  the  collectivist  form  by  simply  developing 
certain  practices  of  bourgeois  society,  interpreting 
generously  certain  articles  of  its  code,  and  hasten- 
ing the  forward  march  of  our  legislation  in  the 
paths  along  which  it  has  already  begun  to  move. 
But  those  who  constitute  themselves  the  guardians 
oi private  property  not  only  deny  the  society  of  the 
future;  they  misunderstand  the  society  of  the 
present. 


'  The  "  Code  Napoléon." 
3 


IV 

ROUGH   OUTLINES 

The  proletariat  has  reached  the  point  where  it 
knows  exactly  what  road  it  should  follow  in  the 
immense  social  transformation  that  is  coming. 
It  recognises  now  distinctly  enough  the  chief 
aspects  of  the  new  fégime  that  it  wishes  and 
ought  to  institute.  It  knows  that  the  power  of 
organised  labour  will  be  substituted  for  the  power 
of  capital,  that  all  tribute  to  capital  from  labour 
will  be  abolished,  and  that  the  disorder  of  capital- 
ist and  mercantile  production  will  give  place  to  an 
order  of  production  regulated  by  science  itself  ac- 
cording to  the  needs  of  every  one.  The  proletariat 
knows  that  it  is  necessary,  in  order  that  the 
organisation  of  freed  and  sovereign  labour  may 
become  possible,  for  the  collective  body  —  the 
community — to  substitute  its  right  for  the  exist- 
ing right  of  private  property.  It  is  clear  that 
just  as  long  as  individuals  and  classes  control  the 
means  of  production  so  long  will  the  authority 
over  a  large  number  of  individuals  be  retained 
and  exploited  by  the  few.  The  intervention  of 
the  community  itself  in  regard  to  property  is 
34 


Rough  Outlines  35 

necessary  in  order  that  the  rights  of  all  individuals 
may  be  respected.  From  this  truth  comes  the 
grand  coUectivist  or  communist  idea  of  social 
property  which  is  the  leading  light  of  the  Socialist 
proletariat  in  its  many-sided  and  laborious  effort. 

But  this  general  idea,  however  clear  and  well 
defined  it  be,  is  not  sufficient  to  decide  the  method 
to  be  employed  or  the  innumerable  combinations 
by  means  of  which  Socialism  will  be  instituted. 
It  is  certain  that  the  direction  of  economic  evo- 
lution will  itself  determine  the  infinitely  complex 
relations  according  to  which  the  new  society  will 
be  organised.  A  few  general  formulae  will  not 
suffice  to  transform  society.  It  will  be  necessary 
to  observe  constantly  the  trend  of  affairs,  to  grasp 
the  points  at  which  the  society  of  to-day  touches 
the  new  idea.  Our  effort  would  be  sterile  and  our 
action  would  hinder  the  march  of  events  instead 
of  aiding  it,  if  we  did  not  determine  the  direction 
which  facts,  minds,  inclinations,  and  customs  are 
taking. 

I  come  back  to  the  same  concrete  example.  I 
have  shown  the  blind  evolution  that  is  taking 
place  in  the  holdings  of  the  peasantry,  a  change 
unconscious  and  hidden,  by  which,  if  I  may  say 
so,  the  spirit  of  ownership  is  being  renewed. 
There  is  a  period  of  almost  a  month  and  a  half 
during  the  year,  a  particularly  active  period  too, 
when  the  peasant  proprietors  associate  themselves 
in  groups  over  quite  an  extended  area  and  work 
with  one  another  and  for  one  another.     Hardly 


36  Studies  in  Socialism 

has  the  harvesting-machine  (which  has  not  every- 
where the  adjunct  of  a  binding-machine)  laid 
down  the  grain  in  small  parcels  on  the  fertile 
earth, before  the  neighbouring  proprietors  rush  to 
help  in  tying  the  grain  into  sheaves,  forming 
bundles  of  the  sheaves,  loading  these  bundles 
into  great  carts,  and  building  the  stacks.  Between 
the  métayers  and  the  small  peasant  proprietors, 
the  same  exchange  of  service  takes  place,  and 
there  is  not  merely  a  mutual  lending  of  manual 
labour  but  of  work  animals  also. 

When  the  harvesting  machine  has  cut  down  the 
grain,  it  is  necessary,  for  fear  of  storms,  to  tie  it 
up  quickly  and  to  heap  it  in  stacks.  In  order  to 
hasten  this  urgent  work  the  peasants  lend  each 
other  carts  and  oxen,  and,  I  repeat  it,  there  is  no 
account  kept.  It  would  be  impossible  to  value 
the  services  of  one  as  against  those  of  another. 
It  is  a  free  and  friendly  exchange.  Thus,  a  little 
bit  of  the  communist  soul  penetrates  into  the 
peasant  labour  and  into  the  peasant  conscience, 
and  this  lasts  until  the  threshing-machine  has 
done  away  with  the  last  stack  of  the  row  into 
which  the  groups  have  spontaneously  formed 
themselves. 

The  Socialists  indeed  have  never  expected  to 
force  peasant  property  into  communistic  form. 
Our  predecessors  and  our  leaders  have  always 
said  that  the  example  of  agricultural  production 
on  a  great  scale  would  suffice  to  make  the  peasant 
proprietors  abandon  small  field  cultivation  and 


Rough  Outlines  ^7 

divided  properties.  But  even  this  statement  of 
the  case  is  inaccurate  and  represents  the  evolution 
of  rural  life  in  too  drj^,  too  mechanical  a  manner. 
It  is  not  merely  that,  by  no  stroke  of  authority, 
nor  even  by  attraction,  the  peasant  property 
will  enter  into  the  communistic  movement.  It 
will  do  this,  in  part  at  least,  by  its  own  internal 
evolution. 

One  of  the  essential  tasks  of  Socialism  will  be 
to  give  to  the  peasant  proprietors  a  lively  sense 
and  a  true  understanding  of  the  change  that  is 
obscurely  taking  place  among  them.  When  one 
makes  them  notice  it  they  are  astonished  for  a 
moment,  then  they  recognise  the  extent  of  the 
change  that  is  coming  about  little  by  little  in  their 
habits  and  thoughts.  It  is  in  prolonging  and 
systematising  these  new  tendencies  that  Socialism 
will  come  into  contact  with  life  and  will  borrow 
its  strength.  This  co-operation,  still  superficial 
and  limited,  will  have  to  be  extended  and  organ- 
ised and  made  adaptable.  It  would  be  necessary 
in  many  regions  to  inaugurate  great  works  for 
the  perfecting  of  agricultural  processes:  ditches 
must  be  dug,  marshes  drained,  hills  flattened, 
fertiliser  carted,  earth  must  be  added  and  irriga- 
tion managed.  It  is  possible  that  the  nation  will 
be  called  upon  to  encourage  and  subsidise  these 
works,  for  it  is  irrational  that  there  should  be 
public  works  of  communication  and  not  public 
works  of  production.     However,  it  is  very  clear 


38  Studies  in  Socialism 

that  the  active  and  intelligent  collaboration  of  the 
producers  themselves  will  be  necessary.  More- 
over, this  collaboration  is  beginning  to  seem 
possible  since  communistic  habits  have  got  a 
foothold  in  the  peasant  labour. 

I  could  cite  many  characteristics,  slight  indeed 
but  which  outline  the  future  forms  which  life  will 
take.  I  spoke  of  the  vineyards  around  Gaillac. 
There,  for  several  years,  since  the  simple  agri- 
cultural wage  earners  have  regained  the  hope  of 
acquiring  some  small  share  of  the  reconstituted 
vineyards,  they  have  little  by  little  established  a 
curious  custom.  The  working  day,  which  com- 
mences it  is  true  at  a  very  early  hour,  almost  at 
daybreak,  ends  at  four  o'clock  in  the  afternoon. 
The  reason  is  that  it  is  necessary  for  many  of 
these  proletarians,  of  these  wage  earners  who 
possess  a  small  vineyard  and  who  wdsh  to  work 
in  it  after  their  day's  labour  at  the  bourgeois  pro- 
prietor's, to  be  free  at  four  o'clock.  Thus,  these 
men  are  accustomed  to  two  kinds  of  work,  to  the 
collective  work  which  they  perform  on  a  great 
estate  in  company  with  numerous  wage  earners, 
and  to  the  individual  labour  that  they  perform  on 
their  own  minute  property.  I  hardly  need  say 
that  the  work  they  do  for  themselves  is,  even 
after  the  fatigue  of  the  paid  labour,  a  pleasure  and 
a  joy.  But  I  am  convinced  that  this  duality  of 
soul  will  continue  in  them  after  the  great  social 
transformation.  I  suppose  that  the  great  vine- 
yards will  become  the  property  of  the  commune. 


Rough  Outlines  39 

I  suppose  that  the  workers  who  yesterday  were 
the  paid  labourers  of  the  noble  or  bourgeois  pro- 
prietors will  be  formed  into  an  association  and 
will  receive  from  the  commune  the  large  estates  to 
exploit.  It  is  evident  that  they  will  be  in  a  much 
happier  situation  than  that  in  which  they  find 
themselves  to-day.  Whatever  part  of  the  product 
is  retained  by  the  commune  and  by  the  nation  for 
the  benefit  of  large  undertakings  of  use  to  society 
as  a  whole,  the  remuneration  of  the  associated 
workers  will  be  larger  than  now,  as  it  will  no 
longer  be  subject  to  the  deductions  of  the  pro- 
prietor. And  the  workers  will  have  the  guaran- 
ties which  they  lack  to-day.  Without  being 
proprietors  in  the  strict  and  narrow  sense  of  the 
term,  they  will  not  be  salaried  workers.  They 
will  choose  their  employers;  they  will  take  part 
in  the  management  of  undertakings;  they  will 
have  a  definite  right  by  reason  of  the  contracts; 
they  will  be  protected  by  the  higher  forms  of  the 
contracts  which  in  the  Communist  society  will 
guarantee  all  individual  rights,  even  against  arbi- 
trary action  of  the  association  of  which  they  will 
form  a  part.  They  will  then  be  attached  to  the 
great  vineyards  cultivated  by  their  hands,  by  a 
bond  more  living  and  strong,  by  a  sensation  more 
joyous  and  more  full  than  the  wage  earner  of  to- 
day enjoys.  And  nevertheless  it  is  extremely 
probable  that  they  would  feel  a  vital  loss  if  they 
should  no  longer  find,  in  seeing  the  grapes  grow 
golden  on  certain  vines  which  were  theirs,  no  one's 


40  Studies  in  Socialism 

but  theirs,  that  keen  joy  which  has  more  intimacy 
than  egotism  in  it.  And  why  should  a  com- 
munist society,  skilful  in  cultivating  all  varieties 
of  joys,  abolish  this  one  ?  Let  our  conscious  effort 
direct  more  and  more  the  vast  social  movement 
towards  the  Communism  to  which  it  already  so 
strongly  inclines,  but  once  started  in  this  direc- 
tion the  varied  forces  of  life  will  themselves  freely 
and  finally  determine  their  own  advance  and 
equilibrium. 


REVOI.UTIONARY   EVOIyUTION 


41 


V 

AFTER   FIFTY  YEARS 

Whkn  the  revolution  of  1848  had  been  crushed 
everywhere,  in  France,  in  Germany,  in  Italy,  in 
Austria,  and  in  Hungary,  when  the  proletariat 
had  been  beaten  by  the  bourgeoisie  and  the  liberal 
bourgeoisie  by  the  reaction,  the  Communist  and 
working-class  party,  having  lost  the  liberty  of 
the  press  and  the  right  to  hold  meetings,  in  other 
words  all  the  legal  means  of  gaining  its  ends,  was 
forced  to  enter  on  subterranean  methods  and  to 
organise  itself  in  secret  societies. 

In  this  way  a  German  Communist  society  was 
organised,  whose  central  committee,  in  1850,  sat 
at  London.  Naturally,  in  these  obscure  and  en- 
thusiastic little  societies,  embittered  as  they  were 
by  defeat,  hot  for  revenge,  and  unbalanced  by  the 
very  absence  of  the  stead3àng  contact  of  ordinary 
life,  puerile  plans  of  conspiracy  were  abundant. 
Defeat,  however,  had  not  deprived  Marx,  who  was 
a  member  of  the  central  committee,  of  his  lucidity 
and  his  large  view  of  life  in  its  complications  and 
its  evolution.  He  opposed  childish  plans  and 
calmed  ebullitions  of  excitement.  But  the  day 
43 


44  Studies  in  Socialism 

came  when  he  had  to  break  away.  On  the  15th 
of  September,  1850,  he  resigned  from  the  central 
committee  of  London.  He  insisted  upon  justify- 
ing this  act  of  schism  by  a  written  declaration, 
inserted  in  the  report  of  the  committee,  which  ran 
as  follows: 

"The  majority  [z.  e.,  his  opponents]  has  sub- 
stituted the  dogmatic  spirit  for  the  critical,  the 
idealistic  interpretation  of  events  for  the  material- 
istic. Simple  will-power,  instead  of  the  true  re- 
lations of  things,  has  become  the  motive  force  of 
revolution.  While  we  say  to  the  working  people: 
'  You  will  have  to  go  through  fifteen,  twenty, 
fifty  years  of  civil  wars  and  wars  between  nations 
not  only  to  change  existing  conditions  but  to 
change  yourselves  and  make  yourselves  worthy 
of  political  power,'  you,  on  the  contrary,  say,  '  We 
ought  to  get  power  at  once,  or  else  give  up  the 
fight.'  While  we  draw  the  attention  of  the  Ger- 
man workman  to  the  undeveloped  state  of  the 
proletariat  in  Germany,  you  flatter  the  national 
spirit  and  the  guild  prejudices  of  the  German 
artisans  in  the  grossest  manner,  a  method  of  pro- 
cedure without  doubt  the  more  popular  of  the  two. 
Just  as  the  democrats  made  a  sort  of  fetish  of  the 
words  '  the  people,'  so  you  make  one  of  the  word 
'  proletariat.'  Like  them,  you  substitute  revolu- 
tionary phrases  for  revolutionary  evolution." 

I  repeat  it:  it  is  Marx  who  is  speaking.  Fifty 
years!  the  time  that  Marx  gave  the  workmen, 
not  indeed  to  install  Communism,  but  to  make 


After  Fifty  Years  45 

themselves  fit  for  political  power,  have  just 
elapsed.  What  civil  and  international  wars  did 
Marx  have  in  mind  in  1850  ?  What  trials  did  he 
think  the  proletariat  and  Europe  itself  would 
have  to  pass  through  in  order  that  the  working 
class  should  reach  its  full  political  maturity  ? 

Undoubtedly  he  included  the  struggle  of  West- 
ern Europe  with  Russia  among  the  necessary  ex- 
ternal wars,  Russia  had  just  played  the  part  of 
the  great  instrument  of  reaction  in  Europe,  and 
it  seemed  to  Marx  that  while  the  Imperial 
autocracy  remained  unbroken  any  revolution  in 
Western  Europe  would  be  impossible.  So  when 
the  Crimean  war  broke  out  he  hailed  it  with  re- 
joicing; in  his  letters  on  the  Eastern  Question  he 
rails  at  and  urges  forward  the  Liberal  Ministry  in 
England,  who  were,  according  to  him,  too  slow  in 
beginning  the  fight.  Russia  was  not  crushed, 
and  the  European  Social  Revolution  did  not  break 
out  as  a  result  of  the  Crimean  war,  as  Marx, 
overtaken  himself  by  that  fever  of  impatience  and 
illusion  which  in  1850  he  had  objected  to  in  his 
colleagues  of  the  London  committee,  had  for  a 
moment  hoped.  Nevertheless  the  Crimean  war 
did  shake  the  old  system  in  Russia.  In  that 
direction  the  formidable  obstacle  that  Marx  feared 
is  at  least  diminished  if  not  destroyed.  I  think 
it  extremely  doubtful  whether  Russia  could  now 
interfere  successfully  as  she  did  in  1848  and  1849 
to  crush  a  revolutionary  movement,  even  if  a 
Socialist    revolution    were    to  break   out  in   all 


46  Studies  in  Socialism 

Western  Europe,  if  the  proletariat  were  for  a 
moment  master  of  the  situation  in  Paris,  Vienna, 
Rome,  Berlin,  and  Brussels,  as  the  democracy 
had  been  in  1848.  I  do  not  know  whether  the 
union  of  the  Russian  students  and  the  Russian 
Socialist  workmen  will  be  strong  enough  to  force 
a  liberal  constitution  on  the  Imperial  autocracy 
for  a  long  time  to  come.  But  the  autocracy,  an- 
noyed by  all  sorts  of  internal  opposition  and  un- 
doubtedly preoccupied  in  strengthening  itself 
within,  could  not  bring  to  bear  on  Europe  the 
power  that  it  had  at  its  command  a  half-century 
ago. 

At  all  events  everything  that  the  Russian 
autocracy  wished  to  prevent  in  1848  has  been 
accomplished,  or  very  nearly  so.  Russia  wished 
to  keep  Italy  divided,  subjugated  under  the  3'oke 
of  the  foreigner;  she  has  freed  herself  from  Aus- 
tria and  from  the  Papacy,  And  the  working 
class  is  becoming  one  of  the  principal  vital  forces 
in  the  restored  nation.  Russia  wished  to  prevent 
the  establishment  of  the  democracy  in  France, 
even  under  the  Napoleonic  form.  Well,  it  is  a 
republican  democrac}^  that  is  firmly  planted  in 
France,  and  that  is  henceforth  invincible.  The 
political  and  economic  action  of  the  organised 
working  class  there  grows  slowly  but  surely.  In 
Belgium,  the  constitution  inclines  more  and  more 
toward  democracy,  and  the  proletariat  almost 
grasps  universal  suffrage.  In  German^',  by  one 
of  those  extraordinary  ironical  turns  of  history 


After  Fifty  Years  47 

that  bear  witness  to  the  invincible  power  of 
the  democracy,  we  may  say  that  Russia  was  un- 
wittingly the  instrument  that  helped  forward 
universal  suffrage  and  Socialism  itself.  Because 
Bismarck  united  Germany  for  the  advantage  of 
monarchical  and  absolutist  Prussia  ,  Russia  twice 
seconded  the  designs  of  Bismarck  by  a  com- 
plaisant neutrality,  once  in  1866  against  Austria, 
once  in  1870  against  France.  Well,  after  all, 
Bismarck  could  only  bind  the  different  German 
States  together  by  the  tie  of  universal  suffrage; 
he  was  forced  to  make  it  the  golden  ring  of  the 
new  Empire.  Moreover,  the  working  class  in 
Germany,  which  could  not  become  fully  conscious 
of  its  unity,  and  therefore  of  its  existence  as  a 
class,  in  a  divided  and  broken-up  Germany,  has 
developed  its  great  political  activity  over  the  vast 
area  of  a  united  Germany. 

To  sum  up,  the  way  democracy  has  grown  in 
Western  European  States  has  defeated  and  still 
defeats  all  attempts  at  violent  intervention  by  the 
powers  of  oppression.  It  is  not  by  any  sudden 
explosion  that  democracy  takes  possession  of 
States,  and  Socialism  takes  possession  of  the  de- 
mocracy. The  laws  by  which,  from  i860  to  1885, 
England  has  obtained  an  almost  universal  suffrage 
are  as  far-reaching  in  their  effect  as  revolutions, 
and  yet  no  one  except  persons  of  a  certain  learn- 
ing knows  the  exact  date  at  which  they  were 
passed.  It  is  like  the  silent  budding  of  the  trees 
in  spring.     The  new  rôle  of  the  working  class 


4^  Studies  in  Socialism 

and  the  peasantry  in  the  national  and  govern- 
mental life  of  Italy  is  also  the  peaceful  equivalent 
of  a  revolution;  it  is  another  risorgime7ito .  And 
the  same  is  true  of  the  many-sided  growth  of  the 
French  proletariat.  Tsarism  can  harass  and 
weaken  all  these  movements.  It  can  envelop 
governments  by  its  diplomacy  at  once  subtle  and 
weighty,  but  it  cannot  check  the  irresistible  tend- 
ency of  nations  toward  complete  democracy,  and 
the  irresistible  growth  of  the  working  class  within 
the  democracies. 

Thus  the  obstacle  which,  according  to  Marx, 
had  to  be  done  away  with  before  the  working 
class  in  Europe  could  be  capable  of  assuming  real 
political  power,  although  not  destroyed,  has  been 
either  reduced  or  evaded.  It  has  been  reduced 
by  the  Crimean  war,  that  forced  Russian  autocracy 
to  be  passive  during  many  years,  and  that  made 
the  resurrection  of  the  Italian  nation  possible 
four  years  after,  in  1859.  It  has  been  evaded  by 
the  subtlety  of  history  which  disarmed  Russia's 
mistrust  —  by  introducing  German  democracy 
under  the  auspices  of  Prussian  absolutism.  The 
very  ground  on  which  it  stands  is  mined  by  the 
growing  power  of  the  working  class  and  Russian 
liberalism.  Finally,  it  is  evaded  and  reduced  to 
naught  by  the  continuity  of  democratic  and  So- 
cialistic growth  that  is  affirming  itself  everywhere 
in  Europe  without  the  crisis  of  war. 

What  other  civil  or  foreign  wars  did  Marx 
have  in  mind  ?    Doubtless  he  was  thinking  of  the 


After  Fifty  Years  49 

wars  that  were  to  free  Italy,  and  to  unify  Ger- 
many, which  the  weak  Liberal  bourgeoisie  of  the 
Frankfort  Parliament  had  been  unable  to  unite 
by  the  bonds  of  liberty.'  Perhaps,  too,  he  had 
adopted  the  idea  of  Engels,  who,  travelling  in 
France  after  the  days  of  June,  1848,  wrote  in  his 
journal  that  Socialism  would  only  triumph  in 
France  by  means  of  a  civil  war  of  wage-earners 
against  peasants.  Happily  this  is  not  true.  The 
Commune  of  187 1  was  a  heroic  struggle  of  the 
republican  and  partly  Socialistic  workmen  of 
Paris  against  the  country  people.  But  these 
country  people  were  not  the  small  peasant  pro- 
prietors: they  were  the  country  squires,  come  out 
from  their  small  country  houses  for  the  occasion. 
The  democracy  of  small  proprietors  not  only  ac- 
cepted the  Republic  but  acclaimed  it  from  the 
beginning.  It  did  not  take  part  in  the  battle 
against  it.  There  is  no  bad  feeling  between  the 
Socialist  workman  and  the  peasant.  There  will 
not  be  any.  And  we  must  see  to  it  that  no  mis- 
understandings arise  in  the  future,  so  that  the 
rural  democracy  may  come  over  gradually  to 
Socialism  as  it  has  come  over  to  the  Republic. 

At  all  events,  the  primary  condition  of  working- 
class  political  action  has  been  fulfilled  in  the  fifty 
years  that  have  passed;  it  has  been  effected  by 
the  trials  of  great  civil  or  foreign  wars,  and  still 
more  by  the  slow  and  continuous  pressure  of 

'  The  Frankfort  Congress  was  held  after  the  Revolution 
of  1848. 
4 


50  Studies  in  Socialism 

events,  by  that  magnificent  revolutionary  evolution 
that  Marx  heralded.  This  primary  condition  was 
the  formation  in  all  Europe  of  great  autonomous 
nations,  freed  from  Russian  oppression  and  having 
attained  or  tending  energetically  toward  the  at- 
tainment of  democracy  and  universal  suffrage. 

Now  that  that  condition  has  been  fulfilled,  the 
working  class  in  Kurope,  especially  the  working 
class  in  France,  is  in  possession  of  the  '  '  tools  and 
the  workshop."  It  is  no  slight  task  to  bring  the 
proletariat  from  that  point  to  the  final  completion 
of  the  work.  To-day,  as  much  as  fifty  years  ago, 
we  must  guard  against  the  revolutionary  phrase 
and  set  ourselves  to  understand  the  deep  meaning 
of  ^'evolutionary  evolution  in  the  new  era. 


VI 

REVOIvUTIONARY   MAJORITIES 

Thosk  great  social  changes  that  are  called 
revolutions  cannot,  or  rather  can  no  longer,  be 
accomplished  by  a  minority.  A  revolutionary 
minority,  no  matter  how  intelligent  and  energetic, 
is  not  enough,  in  modern  societies  at  least,  to 
bring  about  a  revolution.  The  co-operation  and 
adhesion  of  a  majority,  and  an  immense  majority, 
is  needed. 

It  is  possible — and  history  has  here  a  dij05cult 
problem  to  solve — that  there  have  been  periods 
and  lands  where  the  human  multitude  has  been 
so  passive  and  so  unstable  in  character  that  it  has 
been  moulded  by  the  will  of  certain  strong  indi- 
viduals or  small  groups.  But  since  the  consti- 
tution of  modern  nations,  since  the  Reformation 
and  the  Renaissance,  there  is  hardly  a  single  in- 
dividual who  is  not  a  distinct  force.  There  is 
hardly  a  single  individual  who  has  not  got  his 
own  personal  interests,  his  ties  that  bind  him  to 
the  present,  his  ideas  about  the  future,  his  pas- 
sions and  his  thoughts.  In  modern  Europe,  then, 
for  several  centuries,  every  human  being  has  been 
51 


52  Studies  in  Socialism 

• 

a  centre  of  energy,  of  conscience,  and  of  action. 
And  since,  in  periods  of  transformation,  when  old 
social  ties  are  in  process  of  dissolution,  all  human 
energies  are  of  equivalent  force,  the  law  of  the 
majority  is  necessarily  decisive.  A  society  takes 
on  a  new  form  only  when  the  immense  majority 
of  the  individuals  who  compose  it  demand  or  ac- 
cept a  great  change. 

This  is  self-evident  in  the  case  of  the  Revolution 
of  1789.  It  broke  out  and  it  succeeded  only  be- 
cause an  immense  majority,  one  might  say  the 
entire  country,  wanted  it.  What  did  the  privi- 
leged classes,  upper  classes  and  nobles  amount 
to  when  confronted  with  the  Third  Estate  of  town 
and  country  ?  They  were  one  atom,  two  hundred 
thousand  against  twenty-four  million,  one  one- 
hundredth  part  of  the  whole.  And  besides,  the 
clergy  and  nobles  were  divided  among  themselves 
and  uncertain  what  to  do.  There  were  privileges 
that  the  privileged  themselves  did  not  defend. 
They  were  doubtful  about  their  own  rights  and 
their  power,  and  seemed  to  let  themselves  go  with 
the  stream.  Royalty  itself,  driven  into  a  corner, 
had  to  convoke  the  States-General  though  it 
feared  them. 

As  for  the  Third  Estate,  the  huge  mass  com- 
posed of  labourers,  peasants,  the  industrial  middle 
class,  the  merchants,  the  leisure  class  living  on 
income  {rentiers),  and  the  artisans,  it  was  prac- 
tically unanimous.  It  did  not  limit  itself  to  pro- 
testing against  royal  absolutism  or  the  parasitic 


Revolutionary  Majorities        53 

nobility.  It  knew  how  to  put  a  stop  to  all  that. 
The  memorials  addressed  to  the  throne  all  agree 
in  proclaiming  that  the  man  and  the  citizen  has 
rights,  and  that  no  prescription  can  hold  good 
against  these  immortal  titles  to  equality.  And 
they  specify  the  necessary  guaranties.  The  king 
will  continue  to  be  the  chief  executive,  but  the 
national  will  is  to  make  the  laws.  This  sovereign 
will  of  the  nation  will  be  expressed  by  permanent 
and  periodically  elected  national  assemblies. 
Taxes  shall  only  be  levied  when  they  have  been 
voted  by  the  National  Assembly.  Taxes  will 
bear  equally  upon  all  the  citizens.  All  privileges 
of  caste  shall  be  abolished.  No  man  shall  be  ex- 
empt from  taxation.  No  one  shall  have  exclusive 
hunting  and  shooting  rights.  No  one  shall  have 
the  right  to  appear  before  a  special  tribunal.  The 
same  law  for  all,  the  same  taxation  for  all,  the 
same  justice  for  all.  Those  feudal  rights  which 
are  contrary  to  the  dignity  of  man,  those  which 
are  the  sign  of  ancient  serfdom,  are  to  be  abol- 
ished without  indemnity.  Those  which  encumber 
rural  property  and  keep  it  unimproved  are  to  be 
abolished  by  purchase.  Every  employment  shall 
be  open  to  all,  and  the  highest  rank  in  the  army 
shall  be  attainable  by  the  member  of  the  middle 
class  and  the  peasant,  as  well  as  by  the  noble. 
All  forms  of  economic  activity  shall  also  be  open 
to  all.  The  permission  of  the  guild  and  the  au- 
thorisation of  the  government  shall  no  longer  be 
necessary  before  a  man  can  take  up  this  or  that 


54  Studies  in  Socialism 

trade,  create  this  or  that  industry,  open  this  or 
that  shop.  The  guilds  themselves  will  cease  to 
exist;  and  consequently  the  Church  maintained  as 
a  public  institution,  like  a  guild,  will  no  longer 
have  a  corporate  existence.  It  will,  then,  no 
longer  have  corporate  property.  And  the  estates 
of  the  Church,  the  millions  of  acres  of  real  estate 
that  it  holds,  having  no  longer  an  owner,  since 
the  owning  corporation  is  dissolved,  will  of  right 
revert  to  the  nation,  with  the  reservation  that  the 
latter  ensures  public  worship,  education,  and  pub- 
lic charity. 

It  is  true  that  the  Revolution  had  to  have  re- 
course to  force;  the  14th  of  July  and  the  loth  of 
August  mark  the  Fall  of  the  Bastille  and  the  tak- 
ing of  the  Tuileries.  But  —  and  this  is  a  point 
that  should  be  carefully  noted — force  was  never 
employed  to  impose  on  the  nation  the  will  of  a 
minority.  On  the  contrary,  force  was  employed 
to  insure  the  almost  unanimous  will  of  the  ma- 
jority against  the  factious  attacks  of  the  minority. 
On  the  14th  of  July  it  was  in  opposition  to  the 
royal  co^ip  d'état,  on  the  loth  of  August  it  was 
against  the  treachery  of  the  King,  that  the  people 
of  Paris  took  up  arms;  and  these  acts  represented 
the  right  of  the  nation,  and  were  the  expression 
of  its  will.  It  was  not  due  to  stupid  submissive- 
ness  that  all  France  welcomed  the  14th  of  July 
with  acclamations,  that  almost  all  France  ratified 
the  loth  of  August.  It  was  solely  because  the 
force  of  a  part  of  the  nation  had  put  itself  at  the 


Revolutionary  Majorities        55 

service  of  the  universal  will  which  had  been  be- 
trayed by  a  handful  of  courtiers,  privileged  per- 
sons, and  traitors.  Thus  the  use  of  force  was  in 
no  way  an  audacious  stroke  on  the  part  of  a 
minority,  but  the  vigorous  means  that  the  ma- 
jority took  to  defend  itself. 

It  is  of  course  true  that  the  Revolution  was  led 
on  to  exceed  its  first  demands  and  its  opening 
programme.  In  1789  not  a  single  revolutionary 
foresaw  the  fall  of  the  monarchy  or  desired  it. 
The  very  word  Republic  was  almost  unknown, 
and  even  on  the  21st  of  September,  1792,  when 
the  Convention  abolished  the  monarchy,  the  idea 
of  a  Republic  had  not  altogether  ceased  to  terrify. 
But  the  monarchy  did  not  fall  under  the  assault 
of  a  passionate  minority  or  the  formulas  of  repub- 
lican philosophy.  It  was  only  lost  when  it  became 
evident  to  almost  the  whole  nation  after  repeated 
trials,  after  the  royal  co^ip  d' état  of  the  20th  June, 
1789,  after  the  14th  of  July,  after  the  King's 
flight  to  Varennes,  and  after  the  invasion,  that 
the  monarchy  was  betraying  both  the  constitution 
and  the  country.  Monarchy  only  fell  when  the 
contradiction  between  royalty  and  the  universal 
will  appeared  in  all  its  irreconcilable  violence.  It 
is  evident  then  that  it  was  by  the  necessary  and 
logical  action  of  the  universal  will,  not  by  a  sur- 
prise stroke  of  the  minority,  that  monarchy  was 
abolished. 

It  is  undoubtedly  true  that  the  revolutionary 


56  Studies  in  Socialism 

leaders  did  not  foresee  all  the  economic  and  social 
consequences  that  would  result  from  this  act. 
Mirabeau,  for  instance,  thought  that  the  suppres- 
sion of  royal  monopolies  and  of  guild  privileges 
would  bring  into  being  in  the  new  order  a  legion 
of  small  producers  and  independent  artisans.  He 
does  not  seem  to  have  understood  the  great  capi- 
talistic evolution  of  industry  that  was  about  to 
take  place.  But  others  saw  more  clearly,  and  the 
Gironde  especially  had  foreseen  that  wealth  and 
production  (to  use  an  expression  of  that  time) 
would  be  like  great  rivers,  the  waters  of  which  it 
would  be  hopeless  to  attempt  to  distribute  into 
little  streamlets. 

At  all  events,  if  the  Revolution  did  not  know 
exactly  what  the  secondary  and  indirect  conse- 
quences of  the  economic  and  social  réghne  that  it 
inaugurated  would  be,  if  it  did  not  have  a  clear 
understanding  either  of  capitalism,  with  its  com- 
binations, its  daring  devices  and  its  industrial 
crises,  or  of  the  antagonistic  development  of  the 
proletariat,  it  did  at  all  events  know  what  régime 
it  wanted  to  inaugurate.  That  revolutionary 
France  in  1789  was  able  to  have  so  well  defined 
a  conception  of  the  ends  for  which  it  was  working, 
and  so  powerful  a  will  to  bring  about  its  desires, 
was  due  to  the  fact  that  even  the  boldest  reforms 
that  it  proposed  had  either  precedents  in  the  past 
or  exact  models  in  real  life. 

The  economic  growth  of  the  industrial  and 
merchant    middle-class  in   the  seventeenth   and 


Revolutionary  Majorities        57 

eighteenth  centuries  and  the  great  humane  philo- 
sophic movement  of  the  eighteenth  century  had 
indeed  given  an  audacity  and  impetus  to  the  public 
mind  which  had  been  unknown  before.  Never- 
theless the  memory  of  the  States-General  of  1614 
was  a  source  of  light  and  strength  to  the  men  of 
1789,  in  spite  of  the  two  centuries  of  despotism 
which  had  intervened.  The  nation  was  not  going 
out  absolutely  into  the  unknown;  it  was  reviving 
a  national  tradition,  while  enlarging  it  and  adapt- 
ing it  to  modern  conditions. 

Moreover,  from  the  point  of  view  of  economic 
life  and  of  agriculture  and  industry,  it  did  not 
create  unknown  types  of  property  and  labour.  It 
abolished  guilds,  and  the  masterships  and  warden- 
ships  that  went  with  them.  But  there  were  al- 
ready in  existence  whole  regions  and  particularly 
progressive  industries  that  were  entirely  freed 
from  the  guild  system.  In  the  suburbs  of  Paris, 
especially,  characterised  as  they  were  by  special 
industrial  activity,  the  guild  system  no  longer 
existed.  The  beginnings  of  capitalistic  produc- 
tion with  almost  unlimited  competition,  with  a 
variety  of  combinations,  of  joint-stock  companies, 
sleeping  partnership,  etc.,  had  been  growing  and 
getting  more  powerful  for  several  generations. 
In  the  agricultural  world,  too,  many  peasant 
holdings  had  been  freed  from  feudal  burdens. 
The  type  of  independent  peasant-proprietors,  ex- 
empt from  dues,  except  possibly  the  hunting 
rights  of  the  lord  of  the  manor,  had  already  come 


58  Studies  in  Socialism 

into  being  under  the  old  order.  The  revolution- 
ary process,  then,  was  really  only  an  expansion, 
a  growth  of  forms  already  well  defined  and  well 
known. 

When  it  came  to  the  transformation  of  the 
Church  the  Revolution  had  strong  analogies  and 
vigorous  precedents  to  go  upon.  The  army  and 
justice,  which  had  been  feudal  institutions  in  the 
past,  had  become  in  large  part  State  institutions. 
Why  should  not  the  Church  as  well  cease  to  be  a 
caste  corporation  and  become  a  State  institution  ? 
Moreover,  even  under  the  old  order.  Church 
property  was  considered  to  have  certain  special 
attributes,  and  to  be  subject  to  State  control. 
The  Revolution  cited  with  great  effect  the  famous 
royal  ordinance  of  1749,  which  forbade  the  growth 
of  the  inalienable  property  (^mainmorte)  of  the 
Church  by  legacies.  Thus,  being  controlled  by 
the  State,  Church  property  was  ready  for  na- 
tionalisation. Here,  again,  the  Revolution  had 
obvious  and  reliable  facts  to  support  it. 

In  1789,  then,  men's  minds  did  not  meet  in 
confused  aspirations,  but  in  the  most  precise  of 
positive  afiBrmations.  Their  wills  came  together 
and  were  harmonised  in  the  full  light,  the  perfect 
precision  of  French  thought,  formed  and  moulded 
by  the  eighteenth  century.  And  the  Revolution 
of  1789  was  the  work  of  an  overwhelming  and 
perfectly  self-conscious  majority. 

In  the  same  waj^  and  in  this  case  even  more 
certainly,  the  Socialist  Revolution  will  not  be  ac- 


Revolutionary  Majorities        59 

complished  by  the  action— the  sudden  surprise 
stroke — of  a  bold  minority,  but  by  the  definite 
and  harmonious  will  of  the  immense  majority  of 
the  citizens.  Whoever  depends  on  a  fortunate 
turn  of  events  or  the  chances  and  hazards  of 
physical  force  to  bring  about  the  Revolution,  and 
resigns  the  method  of  winning  over  the  immense 
majority  of  the  citizens  to  our  ideas,  will  resign 
at  the  same  time  any  possibility  of  transforming 
the  social  order. 


VII 
SOME  SAYINGS  OF  LIEBKNECHT 

On  the  yth  of  August,  1901,  the  first  anniver- 
sary of  lyiebknecht's  death,  Vorwàrts  published 
some  very  important  fragments  by  him. 

Eike  most  journalists  who  are  in  the  fighting 
line.Liebknecht  was  forced  to  scatter  his  thoughts, 
to  deal  with  the  daily  problems  one  by  one  as  they 
presented  themselves.  But,  like  many  of  that 
profession,  too,  he  cherished  the  ambition  of  em- 
bodying his  essential  ideas  in  a  lasting  and  serious 
work.  His  friends  found  an  incomplete  manu- 
script among  his  papers,  written  in  1 881,  in  which 
he  had  begun  to  formulate  an  answer  to  the  great 
question  :  How  shall  Socialism  be  put  i^ito  practice  f 
This  work  gives  proof  of  an  indomitable  courage 
in  its  author,  because  it  was  at  the  very  moment 
when  the  regime  of  the  state  of  siege  and  Bis- 
marck's still  undiminished  power  were  weighing 
most  heavily  on  the  Socialist  party,  that  Lieb- 
knecht  asked  himself,  not  whether  Socialism 
would  triumph,  but  how  it  would  triumph.  And 
this  work  shows  at  the  same  time  his  vivid  sense 
of  the  difiSculties  to  be  overcome  and  the  neces- 
60 


Some  Sayings  of  Liebknecht    6i 

sary  transition  and  evolution  to  be  gone  through 
with. 

Here  is  a  fragment  of  prime  importance  :  '  '  The 
Practice  of  Socialism;  what  measures  ought  the 
Socialist  party  to  adopt  if,  in  the  near  future,  it 
obtains  an  inflnerice  on  legislation  f  " 

"  I  want  to  answer  a  question  that  has  been 
asked,  '  '  he  writes.  *  '  But  in  order  that  a  question 
may  be  answered  properly,  it  must  first  be  asked 
properl}'.  Well,  the  preceding  question  has  not 
been  well  put,  at  least  it  is  not  definite  enough. 
Of  course  the  steps  to  be  taken  depend  essentially 
on  the  circumstances  under  which  the  Socialist 
party  has  obtained  an  appreciable  influence  on 
legislation.  It  is  possible,  and  even  likely,  that 
Prince  Bismarck,  if  he  lives  a  while  longer  and 
keeps  his  power,  will  come  to  the  same  end  as  his 
model  and  master,  Louis  Napoleon  of  France. 
Some  catastrophe  for  which  he  is  responsible  may 
break  up  the  mechanism  of  the  State,  and  call 
our  party  to  govern  or  at  least  to  share  in  the 
government.'^ 

I  translate  as  literally  as  possible.  This  means 
that  lyiebknecht  foresaw,  after  a  great  national 
catastrophe,  the  total  or  partial  assumption  of 
power  by  the  Socialist  party. 

"  This  castastrophe  may  come  as  the  result  of 
an  unsuccessful  war  or  an  outburst  of  discontent 
which  the  ruling  system  will  no  longer  be  able  to 
suppress.  If  either  one  of  these  alternatives  oc- 
curs, our  party  will  naturally  take  other  measures 


62  Studies  in  Socialism 

and  follow  other  tactics  than  if  it  had  obtained  an 
appreciable  influence  without  the  aid  of  such  a 
catastrophe. 

'  '  We  may  even  imagine,  though  we  can  scarcely 
count  on  it,  that  the  danger  will  be  understood  by 
those  in  the  upper  circles,  and  that  they  will  at- 
tempt to  avert  a  catastrophe,  otherwise  inevitable, 
by  introducing  intelligent  reforms.  In  this  case, 
our  party  will  be  necessarily  asked  to  participate  in 
the  government,  and  will  be  called  îip07i  especially  to 
reform  the  co7iditions  of  labour.  It  is  not  necessary 
to  go  into  further  details  as  far  as  possibilities  are 
concerned;  those  that  we  have  imagined  are 
enough  to  show  that  the  kind  of  action  we  shall 
undertake  will  depend  on  the  circumstances  in 
which  we  shall  have  obtained  '  an  appreciable 
influence.' 

'  '  But  what  do  we  mean  by  appreciable  or  su£5- 
cient  influence  ?  Are  we  talking  about  an  exclu- 
sive influence,  of  the  possibility  of  our  being  able 
to  apply  our  principles,  without  other  limitations 
than  those  imposed  upon  us  by  economic  con- 
ditions themselves  ?  In  other  words,  does  the 
question  take  for  granted  that  we  shall  have  the 
governing  power  in  our  own  hands  ? 

*  '  Or  does  it  simply  mean  that  we  shall  have  an 
influence  over  a  government  formed  entirely  or  very 
largely  by  the  other  parties  ?  It  is  evident  that 
we  should  act  very  diff"erently  in  the  two  cases. 

"  And  within  each  of  the  two  possibilities  we 
have  suggested  there   are  endless  degrees  and 


Some  Sayings  of  Liebknecht    63 

shades  of  difference,  each  one  of  which  would  call 
for  a  different  kind  of  action." 

According  to  Liebknecht,  then,  writing  in  1881, 
there  are  two  main  hypotheses  which  can  be  le- 
gitimately formed  when  we  are  considering  the 
possibility  of  the  German  Socialist  party's  at- 
taining power. 

First  it  might  be  called  upon  to  act  after  a 
great  crisis,  a  national  cataclysm,  a  disastrous 
war,  or  outburst  of  misery — by  reason  of  some  pro- 
found disturbance,  in  short,  which  would  sweep 
away  the  old  forces  and  would  necessarily  make 
way  for  the  new.  In  this  case,  it  is  certain  that 
the  action  of  the  Socialist  party  would  be  par- 
ticularly energetic.  It  would  rise  up  full  of 
power  and  self-confidence  on  the  ruins  of  the  Im- 
perial order  and  of  the  Imperial  parties.  And 
undoubtedly,  with  the  aid  of  this  great  upheaval, 
it  would  be  able  to  accomplish  more  for  the  people 
and  the  proletariat  from  the  very  beginning,  than 
it  could  do  at  first  if  it  obtained  limited  control  as 
a  result  of  the  gradual  evolution  of  the  institutions 
of  the  Empire  toward  a  policy  of  reform. 

But  even  then,  even  if  a  great  internal  or  ex- 
ternal storm  were  to  uproot  the  conservative  forces 
and  raise  up  the  power  of  the  people,  I^iebknecht 
is  not  certain  that  the  Socialist  party  will  have 
complete  control.  "  Events,"  he  says,  "  will  call 
it  to  govern  or  to  share  in  the  government  {an 
Oder  doch  in  die  Regierung)."  It  may  possibly 
be  able  to  obtain  complete  control.     On  the  other 


64  Studies  in  Socialism 

hand,  even  after  a  revolutionary  crisis,  it  may 
be  forced  to  share  the  power  with  other  demo- 
cratic parties.  After  the  German  4th  of  Septem- 
ber, the  Socialist  party  will  have  a  much  more 
considerable  share  of  power  in  Germany  than  it 
had  in  France  after  the  French  4th  of  September. 
But  lyiebknecht  does  not  feel  certain  that  it  will 
have  complete  control,  that  it  will  be  free  to  gov- 
ern. It  is  possible  that  the  bourgeois  democracy 
will  insist  upon  its  share.  And  where  will  class- 
government  be  then  ? 

But  there  is  another  hypothesis:  that  in  which 
the  ruling  powers  in  Germany,  feeling  the  dan- 
ger, avert  the  catastrophe  by  a  policy  of  reform. 

"  In  this  case,"  says  Liebknecht,  "our  party 
would  be  necessarily  asked  to  participate  in  the 
government,  and  especially  called  upon  to  reform 
the  conditions  of  labour." 

Liebknecht  is  not,  then,  considering  a  complete 
assumption  of  power  by  the  Socialist  party,  in  this 
hypothesis  of  political  and  social  evolution.  Lieb- 
knecht could  not  imagine  and  in  fact  he  did  not 
imagine  that  under  the  Empire,  under  William  I., 
William  II.,  or  William  III.,  the  Socialist  party 
would  obtain  from  the  beginning  all  the  power, 
nor  even  that  it  would  be  able  to  grasp  it  the 
day  after  the  fall  of  the  Empire.  No,  according 
to  him,  a  share  only  of  the  power,  a  place  in  the 
government,  will  be  confided  to  the  Socialist  party 
by  those  in  the  "  upper  circles."  But  this  Lieb- 
knecht considered  an  imperative  necessity.     For 


Some  Sayings  of  Liebknecht    65 

the  policy  of  reforms  to  be  possible,  for  it  to  be 
efiScacious,  for  it  to  inspire  the  coufidence  of  the 
German  people,  the  Socialist  party  must  be  called 
upon  to  direct  it.  The  party  must  be  represented 
and  given  an  active  part  in  the  government. 
Liebknecht  even  goes  to  the  length  of  almost  sug- 
gesting what  place  in  the  cabinet  it  should  occupy, 
and  his  suggestion  bears  a  strong  resemblance  to 
the  Ministry  of  Labour  proposed  by  Citizen  Vail- 
lant or  the  Ministry  of  Commerce  occupied  by 
Citizen  Millerand.  And  Liebknecht  says  rightly 
that  there  will  be  shades  of  difference,  degrees, 
and  numberless  forms,  of  this  Socialistic  participa- 
tion in  the  government.  As  the  Socialist  party  is 
more  or  less  powerful  and  well  organised,  as  it  is 
able  to  exercise  a  more  profound  influence  or  in- 
spire more  real  apprehension,  its  share  of  power 
will  be  more  or  less  extended,  more  or  less  effect- 
ive; its  action  on  all  the  non-Socialist  members 
of  the  government  with  which  it  will  be  associated 
will  be  more  or  less  decisive,  and  the  reforms 
themselves  will  have  a  more  or  less  marked  Social- 
istic tendency,  a  more  or  less  distinct  proletarian 
character. 

The  future  has  never  been  interpreted  in  a 
broader-minded  or  more  liberal  spirit;  and  I  con- 
sider the  publication  of  these  posthumous  pages 
of  Liebknecht  an  event  of  capital  importance  in 
the  political  and  social  life  of  Germany  and  the 
life  of  universal  Socialism. 


66  Studies  in  Socialism 

It  is  important  to  understand  that  Liebkneclit 
foresaw  that  the  Socialist  party  would  obtain 
partial  control  of  the  government  even  under  the 
Imperial  régime.  In  1881,  during  the  state  of 
siege  instituted  by  Bismarck,  in  spite  of  the  coali- 
tion of  almost  all  the  other  parties  united  in  their 
hatred  of  Socialism,  Liebknecht,  whose  spirit  was 
both  bold  and  serene,  foresaw  that  the  Socialists 
would  be  called  to  take  ofi&ce,  and  that  the  em- 
perors themselves  would  be  constrained  to  call 
them;  and  he  foresaw  that  the  Socialists  would 
not  refuse  this  partial  vindication,  that  they 
would  not  refuse  to  undertake  this  partial  work. 
Holding  themselves  ready  to  profit  fully  by  the 
Revolution  if  it  should  break  out  as  a  result  of  a 
national  cataclj-sm,  they  would  also,  he  predicted, 
be  ready  to  enter  into  the  evolutionary  process  if 
destiny  decreed  that  evolution  was  to  be  the 
method  of  advance.  They  would  be  ready,  in  the 
interest  of  the  nation  and  the  interest  of  the  prole- 
tariat, to  become  ministers  of  the  Kaiser. 

By  what  extraordinary  phenomenon,  by  what 
inexplicable  contradiction,  did  the  man  who  pon- 
dered upon  and  wrote  these  carefully  worked- 
over  pages  in  1881,  in  the  full  excitement  of  the 
revolutionary  struggle,  by  what  prodigious  up- 
heaval of  ideas  did  this  same  man  condemn  as  bit- 
terly as  he  did  the  entrance  of  a  French  Socialist 
into  a  bourgeois  government  ?  ' 

'  Millerand  was  Minister  of  Commerce  in  the  Waldeck- 
Rousseau  Cabinet.     See  Introduction. 


Some  Sayings  of  Liebknecht    67 

I  only  hazard  the  guess  that  his  error  in  the 
Affaire  Dreyfus  had  upset  his  judgment  on  all 
the  events  that  resulted  from  it.  Almost  alone 
among  the  German  Social  Democrats,  he  was  mis- 
taken about  the  very  essence  of  the  affair,  and 
misunderstood  its  political  and  social  meaning. 
From  the  moment  he  had  entered  upon  a  cer- 
tain line  of  thought  he  persevered  in  it  with  an 
inflexibility  which  was  aggravated  by  his  very 
isolation.  The  more  he  found  himself  alone,  the 
more  he  persisted  in  the  conviction  that  he  was 
right.  It  was  the  inevitable  other  side  to  his 
sovereign  qualities  of  firmness,  of  energy,  and 
self-confidence.  Naturally,  then,  he  suspected  or 
disapproved  of  everything  that  was  historically 
associated  with  an  agitation  he  had  opposed. 
Since  the  application  of  the  method  he  had  ap- 
proved in  1 88 1  was  made  in  France  under  circum- 
stances that  irritated  him,  he  did  not  even  recog- 
nise the  embodiment  of  his  own  thought  in  the 
progress  of  events. 

Does  the  fact  that  he  did  not  publish  this  work 
give  any  one  the  right  to  say  that  it  has  no  value  ? 
Involved  in  the  whirlpool  of  activity,  over- 
whelmed by  the  business  of  every  day,  he  had  not 
finished  it.  But  he  neither  destroyed  nor  disa- 
vowed it.  Perhaps  he  had  decided  that  it  would 
be  imprudent  to  surrender  his  secret  thought  to 
the  enemy,  to  tell  him  the  tactics  he  had  planned 
for  the  future.  Perhaps,  too,  he  was  somewhat 
disconcerted  by  the  events  that  followed  the  fall 


68  Studies  in  Socialism 

of  Bismarck.  The  great  enemy  of  the  Chancel- 
lor had  always  magnified  and,  one  might  say,  sa- 
tanised  his  part.  He  thought  that  Bismarck  was 
going  to  drag  the  Empire  down  to  the  depths, 
that  he  would  hurl  it  into  some  national  catastro- 
phe. Well,  Bismarck  was  dismissed  in  his  old 
age  without  having  compromised  the  peace  of 
Europe  or  the  solidity  of  the  Empire  by  a  single 
imprudent  act.  Liebknecht  supposed  that  Bis- 
marck personified  not  only  the  danger  but  the 
strength  of  the  Empire.  Once  Bismarck  fallen, 
lie  imagined  that  the  Imperial  institution  would 
have  no  further  support  and  would  weakly  adopt 
a  regime  of  compromise  under  which  the  Socialist 
and  popular  forces  would  use  their  strength  to 
such  good  purpose  that  they  would  attain  politi- 
cal power.  But  William  II.,  having  dismissed 
Bismarck,  was  able  to  preserve  the  Empire  in  its 
autocratic  and  conservative  character,  and  the 
Socialist  party  remained  in  violent  and  uncom- 
promising opposition.  What  point  was  there 
then  in  tracing  a  programme  of  action,  of  Socialist 
reorganisation,  at  a  time  that  was  still  a  period 
of  war  to  the  death,  offensive  and  defensive? 
That  is  probably  the  explanation  why  Liebknecht 
had  not  published  this  important  work,  which 
reveals  one  whole  aspect  of  his  thought.  I  con- 
fess that  when  I  read  the  strong  clear  lines  I 
regretted  that  they  had  not  been  known  at  the 
time  of  the  International  Congress  of  Paris  in 
1900.     That  Congress  hailed  the  great  memory 


Some  Sayings  of  Liebknecht    69 

of  Liebknecht  with  a  sort  of  pious  fervour;  per- 
haps some  bitter  words  would  have  been  soft- 
ened if  it  had  been  known  that  they  struck  at 
lyiebknecht  himself. 


VIII 

I.IEBKNECHT    ON   SOCIALIST   TACTICS 

lyiEBKNECHT  considered  that  the  general  tac- 
tics of  the  party  were  necessarily  variable  and 
dependent  on  circumstances.  That  method  of 
procedure  which  of  late  years  has  gone  by  the 
somewhat  insulting  name  of  Socialist  opportunism 
has  never  been  more  energetically  formulated.  I 
translate: 

'  '  We  have  now  finished  with  general  considera- 
tions. Before  we  begin  on  details,  let  us  briefly 
sum  up  what  has  been  said. 

*'  We  have  seen  that  it  is  impossible  to  decide 
beforehand  on  tactics  for  our  Party  which  would 
hold  good  in  every  case.  Tactics  must  depend 
upon  circumstances.  The  interest  of  the  Party  is 
our  only  law,  our  only  rule. 

"We  have  seen  that  the  ends  of  the  Party  should 
be  wholly  distinct  from  the  means  it  adopts  to 
gain  those  ends. 

"  The  ends  are  inalterable  ;  it  being  of  course 
clearly  understood  that  we  may  look  for  a  scien- 
tific extension,  a  perfecting  of  the  programme. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  means  of  combat  and  the 
70 


Liebknecht  on  Socialist  Tactics     71 

use  that  is  made  of  them  can  change  and  ought 
to  change. 

"  We  have  seen  that  the  Party,  in  order  to  be 
capable  of  the  highest  possible  degree  of  effective 
organisation  and  of  action,  ought  to  have  before 
all  things  a  clear  idea  of  the  essence  of  our  move- 
ment, and  that  it  must  never  neglect  the  essential 
for  the  non-essential, 

'  '  The  essential  thing,  as  we  understand  it,  is 
that  the  unalterable  principles  of  Socialism  shall 
be  put  into  practice  in  the  State  and  in  society  as 
rapidly  as  possible. 

"  The  non-essential  question  is  how  they  shall 
be  put  into  practice.  Not  that  we  wish  to  lessen 
the  importance  of  tactics.  But  tactics  are  only  a 
means  of  obtaining  an  end;  and -whereas  the  end 
presents  itself  before  us  firm  and  immovable,  we 
can  argue  about  tactics.  Questions  of  tactics  are 
practical  questions  and  should  be  absolutely  dis- 
tinguished from  questions  of  principle. 

'  '  We  have  seen,  especially,  that  it  is  absolutely 
unjustifiable  to  consider  that  the  tactics  of  force 
are  the  only  revolutionary  tactics,  and  to  say  that 
he  is  a  poor  revolutionist  who  does  not  uncon- 
ditionally approve  these  tactics.  We  have  shown 
that  force  itself  is  not  in  its  essence  revolutionary, 
but  rather  belongs  to  the  counter-revolution. 

"  We  have  seen  the  necessity  of  emancipating 
ourselves  from  the  bondage  of  certain  catch- 
words, and  of  developing  the  power  of  the  Party 
in  the  direction  of  clear  thought  and  brave  and 


12  Studies  in  Socialism 

methodical  action,  instead  of  displaying  it  in 
phrases  of  revolutionary  violence,  which  too  often 
only  serve  to  hide  a  lack  of  precise  thought  and 
vigorous  action." 

This  is  great  teaching.  But  if  questions  of 
tactics  are  really  of  such  secondary  importance, 
what  is  the  obstacle  to  a  wide  Socialist  unity? 
All  Socialists  agree  as  to  the  aim:  the  establish- 
ment of  Socialism,  the  necessity  for  a  social  or- 
ganisation of  property  with  the  object  of  abolish- 
ing all  tolls  upon  the  product  of  labour  and  of 
assuring  the  full  development  of  every  human 
personality. 

They  disagree  as  to  the  means,  as  to  the  tactics. 
Some,  who  share  Liebknecht's  opinion,  have 
thought  that  during  the  period  of  the  slow  disso- 
lution of  the  capitalist  S3'stem  and  of  the  slow 
elaboration  of  the  Socialist  régime,  the  Socialists 
would  necessarily  be  called,  at  one  time  or  an- 
other, to  help  form  a  government.  Others  have 
thought  differently.  It  is  a  question  of  tactics, 
not  an  essential  question.  Some,  eager  to  mul- 
tiply the  barriers,  have  insisted  that  a  constant, 
systematic,  and  unconditional  refusal  to  vote  the 
budget  was  the  necessary  and  authentic  hall- 
mark of  Socialism.  Others  have  quietly  main- 
tained that  the  party  ought  not  to  be  bound,  and 
that  if  a  budget  included  important  reforms,  and 
if  on  that  account  it  was  opposed  by  the  reaction, 
the  Socialists,  in  opposing  it  also,  would  be  play- 
ing the  game  of  the  reaction.     Here  again  we 


Liebknecht  on  Socialist  Tactics     72) 

have  a  question  of  tactics,  which  will  be  decided 
by  the  very  necessities  of  life  and  by  the  social 
and  political  evolution  that  will  inevitablj'  occur, 
a  question  hardly  serious  enough  to  call  forth 
mutual  recriminations  and  schisms  in  the  party. 

And  just  as  tactics  are  subject  to  change,  the 
programme,  which  is  after  all  a  part  of  the  tactics, 
can  be  modified,  revised,  and  completed.  For 
my  own  part,  I  think  it  utterly  incomplete  and 
strangely  inadequate.  I  think  that  it  does  not 
correspond  any  longer  to  the  degree  of  develop- 
ment of  the  proletariat,  and  that  it  ought  to  be 
supplemented  by  a  whole  series  of  measures 
gradually  admitting  the  working  class  to  power 
and  beginning  half-communism  in  peasant  produc- 
tion. Some,  on  the  other  hand,  object  violently 
to  any  plan  of  action  which  would,  as  they  ex- 
press it,  run  the  risk  of  weakening  the  class-con- 
sciousness of  the  proletariat  by  giving  it  a  definite 
place  in  the  present  organisation.  We  may  look 
for  much  controversy  on  this  point  whenever  both 
sides  are  willing  to  think  clearly.  But  here 
again  we  are  dealing  with  a  question  of  tactics, 
that  is,  as  lyiebknecht  says,  a  question  naturally 
open  to  controversy.  A  schism  on  this  subject  is 
therefore  harmful  and  unnecessary. 

If  I/iebknecht  was  in  the  right,  if  the  appeal  to 
force  runs  the  risk  of  being  counter-revolutionary 
in  character,  if  we  can  and  ought  to  succeed  by 
means  ot  propaganda,  organisation,  clear  think- 


74  Studies  in  Socialism 

ing,  and  a  vigorous  manipulation  of  the  law,  we 
ought  not  to  rest  content  after  we  have  repeated 
Liebknecht's  ideas;  we  must  apply  them  with 
method  and  consistency.  Those  who  talk  alter- 
nately of  the  vote  and  the  rifle,  those  who,  when 
universal  suffrage  favours  them,  give  it  their  al- 
legiance, and  when  it  goes  against  them,  reject  it, 
trouble  the  forward  march  of  the  party  by  the 
incoherence  of  their  thought. 

And  when  I  say  this  I  accuse  myself  as  much 
as  any  one  else.  We  all,  or  almost  all,  have  con- 
fused ideas  on  the  subject  of  tactics  and  our  action 
is  thereby  hampered  and  weakened.  By  our  con- 
stant use  of  republican  lawful  methods  and  of  uni- 
versal suffrage,  we  weaken  the  instinct  of  revolt 
and  the  classical  revolutionary  tradition  of  an 
appeal  to  force.  By  our  intermittent  and  purely 
rhetorical  appeals  to  force,  to  the  rifle,  we  weaken 
our  hold  on  universal  suffrage.  We  undoubtedly 
ought  to  make  a  decision,  to  ask  ourselves 
whether  it  serves  any  useful  purpose  for  us  to 
mark  the  votes  cast  legally  into  the  ballot-box 
with  a  few  grains  of  powder,  that,  moreover, 
never  explode. 

Do  we  need  the  majority,  and  can  we  win  it 
over  to  our  side  ?  There  lies  the  problem.  If 
the  answer  is  yes,  then  an  appeal  to  force  is,  as 
I,iebknecht  says,  counter-revolutionary.  Well, 
lyiebknecht  answers  Yes. 

I  translate  again: 

"  We  have  pointed  out,  finally,  that  the  Party, 


Liebknecht  on  Socialist  Tactics    75 

iu  order  to  put  the  Socialist  ideas  into  practice, 
must  conquer  the  power  that  is  indispensable,  and 
that  it  should  do  this  first  of  all  by  means  of 
propaganda. 

"  We  have  shown  that  the  number  of  those 
whose  interest  forces  them  into  the  ranks  of  our 
enemies  is  so  small  that  it  is  becoming  almost 
negligible,  and  that  the  immense  majority  of 
those  who  have  a  hostile  or  at  least  hardly  a 
friendly  attitude  toward  us  only  take  this  position 
through  ignorance  of  their  own  situation  and  of 
our  efforts,  and  that  we  ought  to  exert  all  our 
strength  to  enlighten  this  majority  and  win  it 
over." 

Liebknecht,  then,  has  stated  the  problem  ex- 
actly, literally,  as  I  state  it.  What  steps  ought 
we  to  take  to  win  over  the  national  majority  to 
the  full  Socialist  ideal,  through  methods  of  pro- 
paganda and  lawful  action  ? 

Liebknecht  is  so  anxious  to  find  a  broad  basis 
on  which  he  can  begin  by  uniting  all  the  nation, 
with  the  idea  of  then  lifting  it  up,  step  by  step, 
to  complete  Socialism,  that  he  considers  even  the 
compulsory  insurance  laws  proposed  by  Bismarck 
as  a  preparation  for  Socialism.  Although,  in  his 
eyes,  the  law  dealing  with  accidents  is  hardly 
more  than  a  flimsy  paper  toy,  he  sees  in  it  a  first 
recognition  of  Socialist  thought. 

"  It  embodies  in  a  decisive  manner  the  princi- 
ple of  State  regulation  of  production  as  opposed 


7^  Studies  in  Socialism 

to  the  laissez-faire  system  of  the  Manchester 
school.  The  right  of  the  State  to  regulate  pro- 
duction supposes  the  duty  of  the  State  to  interest 
itself  in  labour,  and  State  control  of  the  labour  of 
society  leads  directly  to  State  organisation  of  the 
labour  of  society." 

That  was  what  Liebknecht  said  about  the  law 
dealing  with  accidents,  which  of  all  the  insurance 
laws  is  the  most  superficial,  the  least  intimately 
connected  with  the  conditions  of  labour.  How 
much  more  true  is  his  criticism  of  the  compulsory 
insurance  against  old  age  and  sickness,  which  in 
fact  creates  a  new  right  for  the  working  class,  and 
which  constitutes  a  patrimony  for  the  proletariat 
at  once  collective  and  personal;  and  how  especially 
true  it  would  be  of  insurance  against  non-employ- 
ment, which  is  both  necessary  and  possible,  and 
which  would  introduce  the  proletariat  into  the 
very  heart  of  the  productive  system. 

Liebknecht  considers  the  fact  that  almost  all 
the  parties  are  obliged  to  support  this  proposed 
legislation,  as  one  of  the  surest  signs  of  the 
growth  of  Socialism  in  Germany. 

"  All  the  parties,"  he  writes,  "  with  the  excep- 
tion of  the  most  old-fashioned  Manchesterian  an- 
archists, who  wish  nothing  less  than  to  resolve 
the  State  into  atoms  and  deliver  society  to  the 
'  free  '  exploitation  of  the  owning  classes,  rival 
each  other  in  their  solicitude  for  the  '  poor  man  ' 
and  for  the  working  class;  and  there  is  no  doubt 


Liebknecht  on  Socialist  Tactics     T^j 

that  Priuce  Bismarck,  if  he  wants  to,  can  com- 
mand a  majority  in  the  present  Reichstag  for  his 
State  Socialism.  That  the  Protestant  and  Catho- 
lic clerg3',  the  small  farmers  and  great  landed 
proprietors,  should  accommodate  themselves  to 
the  State  Socialism — the  priests  call  it  Christian 
Socialism — is  after  all  not  so  very  astonishing. 

"  But  the  most  striking  phenomenon,  and  one 
without  analogy  in  modern  times,  is  the  attitude 
of  the  National  Liberals.  Split  into  factions  and 
discredited  though  they  may  be,  they  are  an  es- 
sential part  of  the  German  bourgeoisie,  they  are 
themselves  the  typical  bourgeois,  and  they  have 
reconciled  themselves  to  State  Socialism." 

In  other  words,  since  the  pressure  of  events  and 
the  growing  organisation  of  the  Socialist  party 
and  the  proletariat  have  finally  induced  even 
those  classes  and  those  parties  which  would  be 
naturally  most  opposed  to  them  to  accept  the  pro- 
jects of  social  legislation  "  which  will  lead  inev- 
itably straight  to  Socialism";  since  the  immense 
majority  of  the  nation  has  allowed  itself  to  be 
started  in  the  direction  of  Socialism,  and,  one 
might  say,  lifted  up  to  the  first  step  of  social  or- 
ganisation, we  may  conclude  that  in  the  same 
waj'  the  immense  majority  of  the  nation  can  be 
lifted  step  by  step,  by  means  of  an  ever  more 
active  and  definite  propaganda,  by  an  ever  more 
energetic  proletarian  influence,  and  an  ever  more 
effective  mechanism  of  reforms,  to  the  level  of 
our  ultimate  ideal. 


78  Studies  in  Socialism 

This  is  Liebkuecht's  strong  and  firm  conclu- 
sion. The  great  majority  of  the  nation  can  be 
won  over  to  our  side  by  propaganda  and  lawful 
action,  and  led  to  complete  Socialism,  The  whole 
nation,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  refractory  but 
powerless  elements,  will  rise,  if  we  are  determined 
that  it  shall,  by  the  roads  that  lead  up  from  bour- 
geois individualism  to  State  Socialism,  and  from 
State  Socialism  to  Communistic,  human,  and 
proletarian  Socialism. 

The  majority  can  and  ought  legally  to  be  ours. 


IX 

"TO  EXPAND,  NOT  TO  CONTRACT" 

LiEBKNECHT's  thought  is  full  of  contradictions. 
I  imagine  that  his  mind,  like  that  of  many  of  the 
early  Socialists,  was  divided  between  the  un- 
compromising dogmas  of  the  first  days  and  the 
new  necessities  of  the  larger  party,  and  that  he 
was  not  always  able  to  balance  these  conflicting 
tendencies. 

Liebknecht  had  begun  by  being  an  anti-parlia- 
mentary revolutionist.  He  had  declared  and  had 
written  that  Parliament  was  a  swamp  in  which 
Socialist  energies  would  be  engulfed.  He  had 
said  that  the  open  tribune  of  Parliament  would  be 
useless  even  as  a  means  of  spreading  propaganda, 
because  one  could  preach  better  in  the  country 
itself.  And  even  after  the  pressure  of  events  and 
the  growth  of  the  party  had  forced  Liebknecht  to 
discard  those  formulas,  and  when  he  and  his 
friends  had  entered  Parliament,  he  still  kept  a 
memory  of  his  early  uncompromising  attitude. 
He  reminds  us,  in  the  fragment  quoted  in  Vor- 
warts,  that  he  had  objected  to  a  representative  of 
the  Socialist  group  becoming  one  of  the  "  steering 
79 


So  Studies  in  Socialism 

committee"  that  regulates  parliamentary  work. 
His  colleagues  did  not  follow  his  advice,  and  they 
were  perfectly  right;  because  what  good  would  it 
have  done  to  enter  Parliament,  if,  on  the  pre- 
text of  not  wishing  to  compromise  themselves, 
the  Socialists  had  held  aloof  from  the  detailed 
work  that  alone  makes  parliamentary  action 
effective  ? 

I  only  notice  this  small  trait  because  it  symbol- 
ises a  state  of  mind.  Hampered  by  the  definite 
words  he  had  spoken  in  the  past,  I^iebknecht  at 
one  time  took  the  attitude  of  being  in  Parliament 
as  if  he  were  not  in  it.  When,  on  the  other  hand, 
be  was  considering  the  conditions  under  which 
Socialism  could  be  put  into  practice,  when  he 
tried  to  read  the  future  in  all  sincerity  and  seri- 
ousness, he  arrived  at  a  very  broad-minded 
conception  :  he  saw  Socialism  penetrating  the 
democracy  little  by  little,  and,  by  partial  and 
successive  conquests,  imposing  itself  even  on  the 
government  of  middle-class  society  in  the  transi- 
tion stage.  Then  he  was  troubled  and  recap- 
tured by  his  early  habits  of  uncompromising 
opposition.  And  all  the  doubts  and  disturbances, 
the  chaos  of  our  modern  Socialism,  come  from  the 
same  contradiction  between  old  formulas  which 
are  no  longer  true,  but  which  we  do  not  dare  to 
renounce  specifically,  and  new  needs  which  we 
are  beginning  to  realise,  but  which  we  do  not 
dare  to  confess  openly.  An  example  of  this  sort 
of  contradiction  is  the  fact  that  I^iebknecht,  in  the 


"To  Expand,  Not  to  Contract"  8i 

very  same  manuscript  in  which  he  foresees  the 
governmental  collaboration  of  Socialism  with 
other  democratic  factions,  nevertheless  repeats 
and  seems  to  agree  with  the  phrase  so  vigorously- 
condemned  by  Marx:  "  From  the  Socialist  point 
of  view,  all  the  other  parties  form  only  a  single 
reactionary  body."  And  this  is  also  in  direct  op- 
position to  the  practice  of  the  German  Socialists 
themselves,  who  do  not  hesitate  to  support  the 
liberal  bourgeoisie  in  their  struggle  against  the 
small  land-owners  and  the  remnants  of  agrarian 
feudalism.  But  lyiebknecht  atoned  for  the 
breadth,  comprehensiveness,  and  elasticity  of  his 
contribution  to  the  theory  of  Socialist  action  by 
the  dogmatism  of  this  narrow  formula. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  his  definition  of  the  work- 
ing class  is  of  the  broadest: 

"  We  must  not  limit  our  conception  of  the  term 
'  working  class  '  too  narrowly.  As  we  have  ex- 
plained in  speeches,  tracts,  and  articles,  we  include 
in  the  working  class  all  those  who  live  exclusively 
ox  principally  by  means  of  their  own  labour  and 
who  do  not  grow  rich  through  the  work  of  others. 

"Thus,  besides  the  wage-earners,  we  should 
include  in  the  working  class  the  small  farmers 
and  small  shopkeepers,  who  tend  more  and  more 
to  drop  to  the  level  of  the  proletariat — in  other 
words,  all  those  who  suffer  from  our  present  sys- 
tem of  production  on  a  large  scale. 

"  Some  maintain,  it  is  true,  that  the  wage- 
earning  proletariat  is  the  only  really  revolutionary 


82  Studies  in  Socialism 

class,  that  it  aloue  forms  the  Socialist  army,  and 
that  we  ought  to  regard  with  suspicion  all  adher- 
ents belonging  to  other  classes  or  other  conditions 
of  life.  Fortunately  these  senseless  ideas  have 
never  taken  hold  of  the  German  Social  Democracy, 

"  The  wage-earning  class  is  most  directly  af- 
fected by  capitalist  exploitation;  it  stands  face  to 
face  with  those  who  exploit  it,  and  it  has  the 
especial  advantage  of  being  concentrated  in  the 
factories  and  yards,  so  that  it  is  naturally  led  to 
think  things  out  more  energetically  and  finds 
itself  automatically  organised  into  '  Battalions  of 
workers.'  This  state  of  things  gives  it  a  revolu- 
tionary character  which  no  other  part  of  society 
has  to  the  same  degree.  We  must  recognise  this 
frankly. 

"  Every  wage-earner  is  either  a  Socialist  al- 
ready, or  on  the  highroad  to  becoming  one.  The 
wage-earners  of  the  national  workshops  in  France, 
whom  the  middle-class  government  of  the  Feb- 
ruary Republic  wished  to  make  use  of  against 
the  Social  proletariat,  went  over  to  the  enemy  at 
the  crucial  moment.  In  the  same  way  we  see  how 
those  trades-unions  that  were  started  by  the  agents 
of  the  German  middle  class  to  oppose  the  Socialist 
workmen,  either  have  maintained  only  the  shadow 
of  an  existence  or  have  in  their  turn  been  swept 
into  the  current  of  Socialist  ideas.  The  wage- 
earner  is  led  toward  Socialism  by  all  his  sur- 
roundings, by  all  the  conditions  in  which  he  finds 
himself.     He  is  forced  to  think  by  the  very  con- 


*'To  Expand,  Not  to  Contract"  83 

ditions  of  his  life,  and  as  soon  as  he  thinks  he 
becomes  a  Socialist. 

"  But  if  the  wage-earner  suffers  more  directly 
and  visibly  under  the  system  of  capitalist  ex- 
ploitation, the  small  farmers  and  shopkeepers  are 
as  truly  affected  by  it,  although  in  a  less  direct 
and  obvious  manner. 

"  The  unhappy  situation  of  the  small  farmers 
almost  all  over  Germany  is  as  well  known  as  the 
artisan  movement.  It  is  true  that  both  small 
farmers  and  small  shopkeepers  are  still  in  the 
camp  of  our  adversaries,  but  only  because  they  do 
not  understand  the  profound  causes  that  underlie 
their  deplorable  condition:  it  is  of  prime  import- 
ance for  our  party  to  enlighten  them  and  bring 
them  over  to  our  side.  This  is  a  vital  questio7i 
for  our  party,  because  these  two  classes  forjn  the  ma- 
jority of  the  7iation.  It  would  be  both  stupid  and 
ingenuous  to  exact  that  we  should  have  a  ma- 
jority sealed  and  ready  in  our  pockets  before  we 
began  to  apply  our  principles.  But  it  would  be 
still  more  ingenuous  to  imagine  that  we  could  put 
our  principles  into  practice  against  the  will  of  the 
immense  majority  of  the  nation. 
/  '  *  This  is  a  fatal  error  for  which  the  French 
Socialists  have  paid  dear. 

"  Is  it  possible  to  put  up  a  more  heroic  fight 
than  did  the  workmen  of  Paris  and  layons  ?  And 
has  not  every  struggle  ended  in  a  bloody  defeat, 
the  most  horrible  reprisals  on  the  part  of  the 
victors,  and  a  long  period  of  exhaustion  for  the 


84  Studies  in  Socialism 

proletariat?  The  French  proletariat  has  not 
yet  fully  grasped  the  importance  of  organisation 
and  propaganda,  and  that  is  why  up  to  the 
present  moment  it  has  been  beaten  with  perfect 
regularity. 

'  '  The  lesson  of  the  Commune  seems,  happily, 
to  have  served  a  useful  purpose  in  educating  the 
proletariat.  Our  French  comrades  are  hard  at 
work  perfecting  their  organisation  and  are  spread- 
ing propaganda,  especially  in  country  districts. 

'  '  The  German  Socialists,  on  the  contrary,  have 
long  understood  the  importance  of  propaganda 
and  the  necessity  of  winning  over  the  small  shop- 
keeping  class  and  the  small  farmers. 

*  '  A  tiny  nmioriiy  alone  dema7ids  that  the  Socialist 
movement  shall  be  limited  to  the  wage-earyiing  class. 

"  The  frothy  and  theatrical  phrases  of  the  fanatic 
supporters  of  the  '  Class-Struggle  '  dogma  were  at 
bottom  a  cover  for  Machiavellian  schetnes  of  reac- 
tio7ia  ry  feudalism . 

"  The  hyper-revolutionary  dress-parade  Social- 
ism, that  addresses  itself  exclusively  to  '  the 
horny-handed  sons  of  toil,'  has  two  advantages 
for  the  reaction.  First,  it  limits  the  Socialist 
movement  to  a  class  that  in  Germany  at  least  is 
not  large  enough  to  bring  about  a  revolution;  and 
besides  this,  it  is  an  excellent  way  of  frightening 
the  main  body  of  the  people  who  are  half  in- 
different, especially  the  peasants  and  the  petty 
bourgeoisie,  who  have  not  yet  organised  any 
independent  political  activity." 


"To  Expand,  Not  to  Contract''  85 

And  Liebknecht  put  the  finishing  touch  to  this 
thought  by  the  following  vigorous  words: 

"  We  ought  not  to  ask,  '  Are  you  a  wage- 
earner?  '  but  '  Are  you  a  Socialist  ?  ' 

"  If  it  is  limited  to  the  wage-earners,  Socialism 
cannot  conquer.  If  it  includes  all  the  workers 
and  the  moral  and  intellectul  élite  of  the  nation, 
its  victory  is  certain. 

*  '  Why  are  we  forced  to  stand  by  now  while 
our  friends  are  persecuted  ?  Why  do  we  have  to 
submit  to  the  most  indecent  outrages  ?  Because 
we  are  still  weak.  Why  are  we  weak  ?  Because 
a  small  part  of  the  people  aloue  understands  the 
Socialist  doctrine. 

"And  shall  we,  who  are  feeble,  become  still  more 
feeble  by  excluding  thousands  of  men  from  our 
movement  on  the  pretext  that  chance  has  not  made 
them  members  of  a  given  social  group  ?  Stupidity 
would  in  this  case  become  treason  to  the  Party. 

"  Not  to  contract,  but  to  expand,  ought  to  be 
our  motto, — the  circle  of  Socialism  should  widen 
more  and  more  until  we  have  converted  most  of  07ir 
adversaries  to  being  friends,  or  at  least  disarmed 
their  opposition. 

"  And  the  indifferent  mass,  that  in  peaceful 
days  has  no  weight  in  the  political  balance,  but 
becomes  the  decisive  force  in  times  of  agitation, 
ought  to  be  so  fully  enlightened  as  to  the  aims 
and  the  essential  ideas  of  our  Party,  that  it  will 
cease  to  fear  us  and  can  be  no  longer  used  as  a 
weapon  against  us. 


S6  Studies  in  Socialism 

"  All  the  legislative  measures  which  we  shall 
support  if  the  opportunity  is  given  us,  ought  to 
have  for  their  object  to  prove  thejihiess  of  Socialism 
to  serve  the  comvion  good,  and  to  destroy  current 
prejudice  against  us." 

Thus  lyiebknecht  imagines  a  whole  period  of 
legislative  action  during  which  Socialism  will 
have  the  opportunity  of  proving  its  large  view  of 
things,  when  the  blindest  will  be  forced  to  see  in 
it  the  party  of  the  common  good,  and  during 
which  it  will  accustom  all  the  finest  minds  and 
the  noblest  consciences,  and  all  the  petty  bour- 
geoisie and  peasants,  to  follow  it  without  fear  and 
without  shrinking,  even  to  the  complete  applica- 
tion of  its  theory  and  its  ideal. 

The  propaganda  of  action  will  in  this  way  sup- 
plement the  propaganda  of  speech. 


X 


SOCIALISM   AND  THE   PRIVILEGED 

CLASSES 

The  Socialist  party  ought  not  of  course  to  be  a 
confused  echo  of  discordant  interests:  it  must  not 
allow  its  thought  to  be  troubled  or  distorted  by 
the  chaos  of  present  conditions.  It  ought  to  sub- 
mit a  definite  platform  for  the  consideration  of  the 
people,  a  definite  method  of  evolving  toward  a 
perfectly  clear  end.  But  this  plan  of  action  must 
take  into  full  consideration  the  diversity  of  ele- 
ments to  be  dealt  with,  their  passions,  interests, 
and  prejudices.  These  are  Liebknecht's  exact 
words  : 

"  Important  as  it  is  to  give  the  freest  possible 
play  to  all  the  different  groups  of  interests  so  that 
they  may  be  able  to  express  their  ideas  and  their 
needs,  and  to  allow  the  people  to  collaborate  in 
legislation  as  fully  as  possible,  it  would  be  folly 
to  abandon  all  legislation  to  the  initiative  of  the 
people,  folly  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  govern- 
ment and  from  that  of  Socialism  as  well. 

"  Socialism  should  have  a  definite,  easily  un- 
derstood platform,  which  it  should  submit  to  the 
87 


88  Studies  in  Socialism 

representatives  of  the  people,  and  the  different 
representativ^es  of  the  interests  involved. 

"  Social  Democracy  dififers  from  all  other  parties 
in  this,  that  its  activity  is  not  limited  to  certain 
aspects  of  the  life  of  the  State  and  social  life,  but 
that  it  embraces  all  aspects  equally  and  tries  to 
bring  about  order,  peace,  and  harmony  by  recon- 
ciling the  antagonistic  forces  in  the  State  and  in 
society. 

"It  is  not  the  party  of  the  great  landed  pro- 
prietors and  the  feudal  interests,  and,  therefore, 
it  is  not,  like  the  Conservative  party,  constrained 
to  serve  the  interests  of  the  great  and  small  land- 
owners. It  is  not  the  party  of  the  different 
branches  of  the  bourgeoisie  and  consequently  it  is 
not,  like  the  National  Liberals  and  the  Progress- 
ives, bound  to  serve  the  particular  interests  and 
cater  to  the  love  of  power  of  the  bourgeoisie. 

"  It  is  not  the  party  of  the  priest  caste,  and  it  is 
not  therefore  bound  to  further  the  interests  and 
cater  to  the  love  of  power  of  the  priest  caste,  as  in 
the  Catholic  Centre  and  the  Protestant  faction  of 
Social  Christianity  à  la  Stocker. 

'  '//  is  the  party  of  all  the  people  with  the  exception 
of  two  hiuidred  thousand  great  proprietors,  small 
proprietors,  bourgeois,  and  priests. 

"  //  ought,  then,  to  tiirn  toward  the  people,  and  as 
soon  as  the  occasion  arises,  by  practical  proposals  and 
projects  of  legislatio7i  of  general  i^iterest,  to  give 
positive  proof  that  the  good  of  the  people  is  its  07ily 
aim,  the  will  of  the  people  its  only  rule. 


The  Privileged  Classes         89 

"  It  must  follow  the  path  of  legislation  without 
injuring  any  one,  but  with  a  firm  purpose  and  an 
unchangeable  ideal. 

"  Even  those  who  now  enjoy  privileges  and 
monopolies  ought  to  be  made  to  understand  that 
we  do  not  propose  to  adopt  any  violent  or  sudden 
measures  against  those  whose  position  is  now 
sanctioned  by  law,  and  that  we  are  resolved,  in 
the  interests  of  a  peaceful  and  harmonious  evolu- 
tion, to  bring  about  the  transition  from  legal  in- 
justice to  legal  justice  with  the  greatest  possible 
consideration  for  the  individuals  who  are  now 
privileged  monopolists. 

"  We  recognise  that  it  would  be  unjust  to  hold 
those  who  have  built  up  a  privileged  situation  for 
themselves  on  the  basis  of  bad  legislation  person- 
ally responsible  for  that  bad  legislation,  and  to 
punish  them  personally. 

"  We  especially  state  that  in  our  opinion  it  is 
the  duty  of  the  State  to  give  an  indemnity  to 
those  whose  interests  will  be  injured  by  the  neces- 
sary abolition  of  laws  contrary  to  the  common 
good  in  so  far  as  this  indemnity  is  consistent  with 
the  interests  of  the  nation  as  a  whole. 

"  We  have  a  higher  conception  of  the  duty  of 
the  State  toward  the  individual  than  our  advers- 
aries have,  and  we  shall  not  lower  it,  even  if  we 
are  dealing  with  our  adversaries." 

I  do  not  quote  these  splendid  words  with  the 
idea  of  covering  my  own  Socialist  policy  with  the 
mantle  of  a  revolutionary  authority.     The  Social- 


90  Studies  in  Socialism 

ist  party  would  be  very  contemptible  and  very 
cowardly  if  each  one  of  us  did  not  express  his 
own  thought  without  any  more  support  than  that 
furnished  by  reason  alone. 

No,  we  do  not  need  to  seek  the  authority  or 
protection  of  any  one  in  our  effort  to  find  the 
most  convenient  road,  the  broadest,  clearest, 
pleasantest,  and  quickest  way  of  reaching  our 
goal.  We  make  our  effort  openly,  and  the  prole- 
tariat joins  with  us. 

And  to  tell  the  truth,  I  think  that  in  Lieb- 
knecht's  own  mind  these  ideas,  at  once  so  noble 
and  so  practical,  were  counteracted  and  clouded 
by  too  many  different  or  even  contrary  theories 
to  be  able  to  exert  a  profound  and  useful  influ- 
ence. I  think  the  time  has  come  to  ponder  them 
seriously,  and  to  make  them  the  very  foundation 
of  our  policy  and  our  theory,  instead  of  only  a 
brilliant  side-issue.  I  think  that  if  the  Socialist 
party  refused  to  allow  these  thoughts  to  remain 
general  formulas,  if  it  embodied  them  in  a  politi- 
cal platform  of  broad  and  just  evolution  toward  a 
well  defined  Communism,  if  it  gave  the  impres- 
sion of  being  at  once  generous  and  practical,  ar- 
dent and  the  friend  of  peace,  firm  in  its  opposition 
to  unjust  institutions  and  decided  in  its  resolution 
to  do  away  with  them  methodically,  and  concili- 
atory, too,  toward  individuals,  it  would  hasten  the 
true  Social  Revolution  by  fifty  years,  the  Revolu- 
tion that  will  be  embodied  in  conditions,  in  laws, 
and  in  our  hearts;  and  it  would  free  the  great 


The  Privileged  Classes         91 

work  of  proletarian  Revolution  from  the  sickening 
and  cruel  odour  of  blood,  of  murder,  and  of  hate 
which  still  clings  to  the  bourgeois  Revolution. 

But  before  I  leave  lyiebknecht,  I  want  to  quote 
a  few  more  fragments  which  show  the  same  high- 
minded,  broadly  humanitarian  attitude,  the  same 
desire  for  a  just  and  peaceful  evolution. 

"  In  our  work  of  propaganda,  as  in  our  legisla- 
tive action,  we  must  never  lose  sight  of  the  uni- 
versality of  the  Socialist  conception.     .     .     , 

"  One  side  is  especially  economic,  another  hu- 
man and  moral,  a  third  political. 

"  We  should  give  equal  weight  to  these  three 
sides  in  our  propaganda  and  in  our  law-making, 

"  The  people  should  learn  by  experience  that 
Socialism  is  not  only  the  regulation  of  the  condi- 
tions of  labour  and  of  production;  that  it  does  not 
only  propose  to  intervene  in  the  economic  func- 
tions of  the  State  and  of  the  social  organism,  but 
that  it  aims  at  the  most  complete  development  of 
the  individual  and  his  personality;  that  it  con- 
siders education  one  of  the  essential  duties  of  the 
State,  and  that  its  conception  of  a  civil  and  social 
ideal  is  that  every  individual  should  embody  as 
fully  as  possible  the  ideal  human  qualities. 

"  The  deep  significance  of  Socialism  lies  in  the 
fact  that  it  unites  and  fuses  the  most  sublime 
ideals. 

"  Without  the  economic  side,  the  human  ideal 
would  remain  in  the  air. 


92  Studies  in  Socialism 

"Without  the  human  side,  the  economic  aim 
would  lack  moral  consecration. 

"  The  two  are  iudissolubly  united. 

'  '  There  have  always  been  dreamers  who  have 
glowed  with  enthusiasm  for  the  happiness  of  the 
human  race.  But  theirs  were  idle  dreams  or  use- 
less devices,  because  the  material  physical  means 
of  realising  them  were  lacking.  On  the  contrary, 
the  orderly  regulation  of  economic  conditions 
which  Socialism  wishes  to  introduce,  and  which 
will  insure  both  an  increase  in  the  volume  of  pro- 
duction and  a  juster  distribution,  creates  the  eco- 
nomic foundation  for  a  human  existence  in  the 
best  sense  of  the  term,  the  harmonious  develop- 
ment of  the  individual. 

"  Even  the  advantages  of  a  common  ownership 
of  property  and  co-operative  labour  were  under- 
stood in  the  past,  and  the  very  principles  of  the 
Community  of  Communism  were  put  into  prac- 
tice, but  the  human  ideal  that  characterises  So- 
cialism was  lacking  and  historic  Communism  is 
rightly  judged  to  have  been  on  a  lower  grade  of 
civilisation  than  our  present  bourgeois  society. 

'  '  Socialism  presupposes  our  modern  civilisation. 
It  does  not  go  counter  to  it  in  any  way.  Far 
from  being  the  enemy  of  civilisation.  Socialism 
wishes  to  extend  it  to  all  humanity,  whereas  now 
it  is  the  monopoly  of  a  privileged  minority. 

"  Since  Socialism  includes  in  its  domain  all  the 
life,  all  the  feelings  and  thoughts  of  man,  it  can- 
not become  narrow  or  exclusive;  and  this  gives  it 


The  Privileged  Classes         93 

the  immense  advantage  of  being  able  to  produce 
an  effect  as  beneficial  as  it  is  harmonious  on  the 
whole  field  of  civil  and  political  life." 

I  add  one  last  quotation  showing  lyiebknecht's 
care  for  the  details  of  practical  action.  Having 
given  several  pages  to  the  question  of  reforms  in 
taxation,  he  continues: 

'  '  Some  people  may  be  surprised  that  we  lay  so 
much  stress  on  the  question  of  taxation,  since  in 
the  Socialist  State  there  will  be  no  question  of 
taxation. 

"  It  is  true  that  if  we  could  pass  over  to  Social- 
ism at  one  bound,  we  should  not  need  to  concern 
ourselves  with  taxation  at  all,  because  the  funds 
necessary  for  public  expenses  would  come  from 
the  product  of  social  labour.  And  in  a  still 
further  stage  of  development,  when  all  economic 
functions  would  be  State  concerns,  there  would 
be  no  longer  any  difference  between  public  and 
private  expenses. 

'  '  But  we  are  not  going  to  attain  Socialism  at  one 
bound.  The  transition  is  going  on  all  the  time,  and 
the  important  thing  for  us,  in  this  explanation,  is 
not  to  paint  a  picture  of  the  future — which  in  any 
case  would  be  useless  labour — but  to  forecast  a 
practical  progra77ime  for  the  intermediate  period,  to 
formulate  a^id  justify  vieasures  that  shall  be  applic- 
able at  once,  and  that  will  serve  as  aids  to  the  new 
Socialist  birth.^^ 


XI 

THE  NECESSITY  FOR  A   MAJORITY 

I  HAVE  shown,  and  indeed  the  statement  is  self- 
evident,  that  the  Revolution  of  1789  would  have 
come  to  nothing  if  it  had  not  had  the  will  of  the 
immense  majority  of  the  nation  back  of  it,  and  I 
have  said  that  the  same  truth  holds  good  in  the 
case  of  the  Socialist  Revolution;  more  than  all 
others  it  must  be  the  work  of  an  immense  ma- 
jority of  the  nation.  In  bringing  out  clearly  the 
magnitude  of  the  effort  that  must  be  made  I  hope 
that  I  am  not  discouraging  but  spurring  on  the 
energy  and  conscience  of  those  to  whom  I  speak. 
At  all  events,  if  the  work  to  be  accomplished  is 
vast  and  entails  the  co-operation  of  innumerable 
wills,  I  shall  also  show  that  the  resources  and 
forces  at  our  command  are  likewise  vast,  and  that 
it  only  depends  on  us  to  march  forward  to  an  end 
both  certain  and  victorious.  But  I  maintain  that 
the  vehement  effort  of  a  Socialist  minority  will 
not  suffice,  and  that  we  must  rally  round  us  al- 
most the  whole  body  of  citizens.  These  are 
the  reasons: 

In  the  first  place,  the  Socialist  minority  is  not 
opposed  to  an  inert  and  passive  mass.  In  the 
94 


The  Necessity  for  a  Majority    95 

hundred  and  twenty  years  that  have  passed  since 
the  Revolution,  human  energy,  already  excited  by 
the  Reformation  and  the  Renaissance,  has  devel- 
oped a  prodigious  animation.  In  all  classes  and 
in  all  conditions  of  life  we  find  active  wills,  forces 
in  motion.  Everywhere  the  individual  has  become 
self-conscious.  Everywhere  greater  and  greater 
efforts  are  being  made.  The  working  class  has 
shaken  off  its  drowsiness  and  passivity.  But  the 
lower  middle-class  is  also  active.  In  spite  of  the 
often  crushing  weight  of  the  present  economic  sys- 
tem, it  is  not  altogether  subdued;  it  is  constantly 
making  an  effort  to  better  itself.  And  if  it  often 
seeks  its  deliverance  by  the  most  reactionary 
ideas,  the  most  detestable  politics,  and  the  most 
sterile  and  degrading  jingo  patriotism,  it  is  none 
the  less  an  active  and  passionate  power.  It  forms 
leagues,  and  in  Paris  it  holds  the  Republican  and 
Socialist  democracy  in  check.  That  is  to  say,  it 
will  oppose  a  resistance  that  may  be  effective,  to 
any  social  movement  to  which  it  has  not  been 
gradually  converted,  at  least  to  a  certain  degree. 
In  the  same  way  the  small  peasant-proprietors 
have  played  a  great  rôle  ever  since  the  Revolu- 
tion, sometimes  on  the  side  of  reaction,  sometimes 
on  that  of  liberty.  Save  for  some  glorious  and 
fairly  numerous  exceptions,  they  took  fright  at 
the  idea  of  the  Red  Terror  in  1851,  and  contributed 
to  the  success  of  the  coup  d'etat  and  the  Empire. 
Since  then  they  have  been  gradually  won  over  by 
the  Republic  and  have  become  one  of  the  living 


go  Studies  in  Socialism 

forces  back  of  it.  They  are  perfectly  conscious  of 
their  political  power.  They  have  begun  to  hold 
municipal  office,  they  know  that  they  make  the 
deputies,  the  members  of  the  provincial  legisla- 
tures, and  the  senators,  and  they  would  have  no 
tolerance  for  a  great  social  movement  in  which 
they  took  no  part. 

I  think  it  extremely  short-sighted  to  say  that  if 
the  peasants  are  neutral,  that  will  be  enough,  that 
all  Socialism  asks  of  them  is  to  stand  aside  pass- 
ively. No  social  force  can  remain  neutral  when 
a  great  movement  is  on  foot.  If  they  are  not 
with  us,  they  will  be  against  us. 

And,  anyway,  since  the  CoUectivist  system 
presupposes  the  co-operation  of  the  peasants  (for 
example,  they  must  be  willing  to  sell  their  pro- 
duce at  the  common  shop)  their  passive  resistance 
would  be  enough  to  starve  and  defeat  the  Revolu- 
tion. They  know  their  power  and  they  are  not 
going  to  let  it  drop  from  their  hands.  Even  the 
economic  initiative  they  have  shown  for  several 
years,  the  spirit  of  progress  that  animates  them, 
everything,  points  to  the  fact  that  they  would  not 
allow  their  share  in  great  social  events  to  be  a 
purely  passive  one,  when  those  events  will  have 
an  immediate  reaction  on  their  own  lives.  Either 
they  will  help  them,  or  they  will  defeat  them. 

And  yet  another  element  must  be  considered. 
The  privileged  classes  have  to-day  infinitely  more 
authority,  and  therefore  more  power,  than  the 
privileged  classes  before   1789.     The  industrial 


The  Necessity  for  a  Majority    97 

middle-class  has  retained  a  vital  force.  It  has 
follov/ed  the  laws  of  scientific  progress.  It  is 
constantly  adopting  new  methods  of  production 
and  renewing  and  impro^nng  its  machinery.  And 
even  from  the  standpoint  of  the  social  struggle, 
the  battle  between  the  classes,  it  has  readjusted 
its  method  of  warfare;  the  invention  of  trade- 
unions  of  which  the  employer  is  also  a  member 
and  to  which  he  grants  special  privileges'  is  a 
proof  of  the  audacity  and  suppleness  of  its  re- 
sources. What  a  contrast  between  the  activity 
of  a  great  prelate  under  the  ancien  regime,  and  a 
great  modern  capitalist!  Some  of  these,  like  cer- 
tain American  millionaires,  seem  to  have  inherited 
the  activity  of  Napoleon.  And  even  in  France, 
in  a  more  modest  degree,  the  capitalist  class  is 
ever  on  the  alert.  It  is  not  from  indifferent  and 
drowsy  classes,  but  from  active,  foresighted,  and 
bold  classes  that  the  proletariat  must  wring  its 
privileges.  How  can  it  do  this  if  it  has  not  the 
nation  on  its  side  ?  If  the  mass  of  the  nation  is 
hostile,  it  will  be  crushed.  And  if  it  is  only  dis- 
trustful, the  manoeuvres  of  the  capitalist  class  will 
soon  change  that  distrust  to  hostility. 

Thus  we  see  that  the  universal  motion  and  vi- 
tality of  modern  life  and  the  universal  activity  of 
energy  no  longer  admit  of  successful  action  by 
minorities.     There  are  no  longer  dormant  masses 


'  They  are  called  "yellow  unions  "  in  distinction  to  the 
'  red  "  Socialist  unions. 

7 


98  Studies  in  Socialism 

that  a  vigorous  push  can  shake  iuto  hfe.  There 
are  everywhere  centres  of  force  which  would 
quickly  become  centres  of  resistance  and  points 
of  reaction,  if  they  were  not  moving  gradually  in 
the  direction  of  the  new  society  of  their  own 
accord. 

In  the  second  place,  the  transformation  of  prop- 
erty that  Socialism  wishes  and  ought  to  accomp- 
lish is  much  vaster,  more  far-reaching,  and  much 
more  subtle  than  that  accomplished  one  hundred 
and  ten  years  ago  by  the  revolutionary  middle 
class. 

In  1789  the  Revolution  struck  at  a  form  of 
property  marked  out  by  narrow  limits.  When 
the  possessions  of  the  Church  were  nationalised 
it  was  a  corporate  property  very  clearly  defined 
that  was  being  absorbed.  Outside  of  the  Church 
and  of  the  regular  and  secular  clergy,  not  a  single 
person  who  owned  property  had  to  fear  that  the 
law  of  expropriation  which  had  been  decreed 
against  the  Church  would  react  on  him.  The 
Abbé  Maury  tried  in  vain  to  spread  a  panic:  the 
bourgeois  and  peasant-proprietors  knew  too  well 
that  the  property  of  the  Church  was  clearly  de- 
fined, and  that  expropriation  would  not  go  beyond 
those  limits. 

In  the  same  way,  when  the  Revolution  abol- 
ished feudal  rights,  that  too  was  a  definite  meas- 
ure, with  results  known  beforehand  and  limited 
in  scope.     There  were  undoubtedly  some  cases  of 


The  Necessity  for  a  Majority    99 

feudal  rights  in  connection  with  non-feudal  prop- 
ert}^  but,  on  the  whole,  the  nobles  were  the  only- 
ones  affected.  The  very  nature  of  feudal  dues, 
which  presupposed  a  bond  of  personal  depend- 
ence, reserved  the  benefits  accruing  therefrom  to 
a  single  class  of  persons. 

It  is  quite  otherwise  with  capital,  whose  very- 
essence  it  is  to  be  diffused.  It  has  no  certain 
and  known  limits.  It  is  not  concentrated  in  the 
hands  of  a  corporation  like  the  Church,  or  a 
caste  like  the  nobility.  It  is  of  course  true  that 
the  titles  that  represent  it  are  very  far  from  being 
as  widely  dispersed  as  the  made-to-order  optimism 
of  bourgeois  political-economists  would  have  us 
believe.  But  it  is  true  that  they  are  not  reserved 
to  any  given  category  of  titular  proprietors  and 
that  they  are  fairly  generally  distributed.  There 
are  small  property-owners  even  in  the  villages. 
And  if  a  coup-de-force  of  the  minority  were  sud- 
denly to  abolish  capitalist  property,  unexpected 
centres  of  resistance  would  spring  into  being 
everywhere.  Only  by  definite  and  nicely  graded 
steps,  by  which  their  interests  are  fully  protected, 
can  the  medium  and  small  owners  be  brought  to 
consent  to  the  transformation  of  capitalist  prop- 
erty to  social  property.  And  it  is  perfectly  cer- 
tain that  these  legal  adjustments  can  only  be 
conducted  and  these  guaranties  established  by 
the  calm  deliberation  and  legalised  will  of  the 
majority  of  the  nation. 

In  the  same  way  the  transformation  of  agrarian 


loo         Studies  in  Socialism 

property  and  its  evolution  toward  a  system 
broadly  Communistic  will  be  impossible  as  long 
as  the  peasant  proprietors  are  not  fully  reassured. 
The  adhesion  of  the  peasant  proprietors  is  the 
more  necessary  because  in  comparison  with  them 
the  number  of  large  rural  proprietors  is  constantly 
decreasing.  But  their  adhesion  is  not  to  be  won 
by  a  sudden  movement,  whose  effects  they  have 
not  been  able  to  calculate.  They  will  only  sup- 
port a  movement  that  has  been  fully  discussed 
with  them,  and  one  that,  by  constantly  raising 
their  productive  power  and  standard  of  life,  will 
reassure  them  completely  as  to  the  end  and  object 
of  Socialist  action. 

And  this  is  not  all.  In  1789  the  Revolution 
had  only  a  negative  work  to  perform  in  the  do- 
main of  property,  that  is  to  saj^  it  abolished,  it  did 
not  create.  It  did  away  with  Church  property', 
but  the  confiscated  estates  of  the  Church  were  put 
up  for  sale.  It  converted  them  directly  into  a 
known  form  of  private  property.  And  when 
feudal  rights  were  abolished,  what  happened  was 
that  the  property  of  the  peasant  was  freed  of  a 
certain  burden,  but  the  fundamental  character- 
istics were  not  altered.  The  peasant  was  simply 
more  fully  possessed  of  that  which  was  alread}'- 
his  in  some  degree.  But  the  Revolution  did  not 
bring  into  being  any  new  form  of  property.  It 
did  not  imagine  any  new  social  type.  Its  work 
of  liberty  was  limited  to  the  breaking  of  fetters. 
It  did  not  have  to  create,  it  did  not  have  to  or- 


The  Necessity  for  a  Majority  loi 

ganise.  All  society  asked  of  it  was  destruction; 
once  this  destruction  had  been  accomplished  so- 
ciety itself  went  confidently  forward  along  the 
route  already  partly  traversed. 

The  Socialist  Revolution,  on  the  contrary,  must 
not  rest  content  after  it  has  abolished  capitalism; 
it  must  create  the  new  type  under  which  produc- 
tion is  to  be  carried  on  and  the  relations  of  prop- 
erty are  to  be  regulated. 

Imagine  that  all  capitalistic  claims  on  produc- 
tion cease,  that  the  ledger  of  the  public  debt  is 
destroyed,  that  tenants  pay  no  more  rent,  that 
tenant-farmers  pay  no  land-rent,  that  farmers 
who  hold  land  as  métayers  are  no  longer  required 
to  hand  over  half  their  produce  to  the  bourgeois 
proprietor,  that  all  ground-rent,  all  commercial 
profit,  all  dividends  and  industrial  profits  are 
abolished;  if  this  destruction  of  capitalism  were 
not  instantly  supplemented  by  a  Socialistic  or- 
ganisation, if  society  did  not  know  at  once  how 
labour  was  to  be  carried  on,  what  was  to  be  the 
function  of  the  State,  of  local  government,  and  of 
the  trade-union,  and  according  to  what  principles 
the  producers  were  to  be  remunerated;  if,  in  a 
word,  society  were  not  able  to  ensure  the  proper 
working  of  a  new  social  system,  it  would  fall  into 
an  abyss  of  disorder  and  misery,  and  the  Revolu- 
tion would  be  lost  in  one  day. 

But  this  new  social  system  cannot  be  created 
and  inspired  by  a  minority.  It  can  only  function 
with  the  approval  of  an  immense  majority  of  the 


102         Studies  in  Socialism 

citizens.  And  it  is  the  majority  of  the  citizens 
that  will  multiply  little  by  little  the  germs  and 
tentative  undertakings  from  which  the  new  social 
order  will  arise.  It  is  this  majority  that  will 
gradually  create,  from  capitalistic  chaos,  the  vari- 
ous types  of  social  property,  co-operative,  com- 
munal, and  trade-union  ;  and  it  will  only  demolish 
the  last  remains  of  the  capitalist  edifice  when  it 
has  firmly  established  the  foundations  of  the  So- 
cialist order  and  when  the  new  building  is  ready 
to  give  shelter,  to  mankind.  In  this  immense 
task  of  social  construction,  the  immense  majority 
of  the  citizens  must  co-operate. 

We  must  never  forget  the  new  and  grandiose 
character  of  the  Socialist  Revolution.  The  com- 
mon good  will  be  its  object.  For  the  first  time 
since  the  beginning  of  human  history,  a  great 
social  upheaval  will  have  for  its  aim,  not  the  sub- 
stitution of  one  class  for  another,  but  the  destruc- 
tion of  class  and  the  inauguration  of  a  universal 
humanity. 

In  the  Socialist  order,  discipline  and  the  smooth 
co-operation  of  individual  wills  will  not  be  main- 
tained by  the  authority  of  one  class  over  another, 
but  will  come  as  the  result  of  the  free  will  of 
associated  guardians  of  the  peace. 

How,  then,  can  a  system  based  on  the  free  col- 
laboration of  all  be  instituted  against  the  will,  or 
even  without  the  aiding  will,  of  the  greater  num- 
ber? All  the  social  forces  that  were  either  re- 
fractory or  inert  would  be  such  a  drag  on  Socialist 


The  Necessity  for  a  Majority  103 

production,  and  would  use  up  so  much  energy 
and  elasticity  in  numberless  jars  and  frictions, 
that  the  whole  system  would  end  in  disaster.  It 
can  only  succeed  by  the  general  and  almost 
unanimous  desire  of  the  community. 

Destined  for  the  benefit  of  all,  it  must  be  pre- 
pared and  accepted  by  almost  all,  practically  in- 
deed by  all;  because  the  hour  inevitably  arrives 
when  the  power  behind  an  immense  majority  dis- 
courages the  last  efforts  to  resist  its  will.  The 
noblest  thing  about  Socialism  is  precisely  that  it 
is  not  the  regime  of  a  minority.  It  cannot,  there- 
fore, and  ought  not  to  be  imposed  b}'^  a  minority. 

I  must  add,  further,  that  the  long  exercise  of 
universal  suffrage  has  made  it  more  and  more 
difiicult,  if  not  impossible,  for  the  minority  alone 
to  carry  through  any  enterprise  successfully. 
Universal  suffrage,  indeed,  is  constantly  throwing 
light  on  the  respective  strength  of  the  different 
parties.  It  is  perpetually  and  publicly  taking 
their  measure.  For  a  minority  to  attempt  any 
independent  movement  when  all  the  country 
knows,  and  it  knows  itself,  that  it  is  in  the  min- 
ority, is,  then,  extremely  difficult. 

In  1830  and  1848  the  revolutionary  minority 
which  rose  up  could  say,  and  could  make  others 
believe,  that  it  represented  the  thought  of  the  ma- 
jority. Because  this  majority,  under  a  system  of 
limited  suffrage,  was  voiceless.  I  do  not  speak 
of  the  fall  of  the  Empire,  whose  collapse  was  due 


I04         Studies  in  Socialism 

in  greater  measure  to  its  defeat  by  Germany  than 
to  the  Revolution.  But  undoubtedly  the  great 
weakness  of  the  Commune  was  to  have  to  deal 
with  an  Assembly  which,  reactionary  though  it 
was,  was  the  outcome  of  universal  suffrage  and 
of  the  general  will  of  the  nation. 

A  minority  that,  having  taken  part  in  the  eleC' 
tions  and  having  accepted  them  as  a  gauge, 
should  then  attempt  to  go  against  the  will  of  the 
majority  by  violence,  would  be  in  an  utterly  false 
position.  And  it  would  be  opposed  by  a  majority 
that,  armed  with  the  consciousness  of  its  own 
force  which  the  authentic  figures  of  the  ballot 
would  give,  would  not  only  not  yield  but  in  all 
probability  would  rally  to  its  standard  many  ele- 
ments from  the  revolting  minority. 

Further,  the  Socialist  party  does  not  limit  its 
demand  to  the  establishment  of  universal  sufi'rage 
in  all  countries.  It  wishes  universal  sufifrage 
with  proportional  representation.  Liebknecht, 
in  the  fragment  published  by  Vorzvàrts,  demands 
proportional  representation.  The  Socialists  in 
Belgium  have  seconded  him.  Citizen  Vaillant,  in 
a  recent  article,  adheres  in  principle  to  the  scrutin 
de  liste, ^  under  the  absolute  condition  that  pro- 


'  According  to  the  system  of  the  scrutin  de  liste,  the 
voter,  instead  of  casting  his  ballot  for  a  single  represent- 
ative of  a  small  election  district,  votes  for  a  list  of  repre- 
sentatives, the  whole  number  to  which  his  county  or 
state  is  entitled.  The  system  of  proportional  representa- 
tion is  based  on  the  scrutin  de  liste,  with  certain  modifica- 


The  Necessity  for  a  Majority  105 

portional  representation  should  be  instituted. 
This  is  also  the  opinion  of  Citizen  Guesde.  But 
to  ask  for  minority  representation  is  to  ask  that 
each  force,  each  tendency  in  the  country  should 
constantly  make  public  its  exact  numerical 
strength.  It  is  to  wish  that  the  share  of  electoral 
and  parliamentary  influence  of  each  party  should 
be  exactly  calculated  on  its  actual  strength  in  the 
country.  It  is,  then,  to  proclaim  all  legislation 
arbitrary  that  does  not  emanate  from  the  true 
majority. 

According  to  the  admission  of  every  section  of 
the  party,  then,  the  Socialist  Revolution  will  be 
brought  about  by  the  will  of  all,  the  power  of  a 
majority.  The  partisans  of  a  general  strike  are 
the  only  ones  to  maintain  that  the  action  of  the 
industrial  proletariat,  or  even  the  most  active  and 
self-conscious  part  of  that  proletariat,  imsupported 
by  other  sections  of  the  community,  would  be 
enough  to  determine  the  advent  of  Communism, 
the  Social  Revolution. 


tions  which  ensure  the  representation  of  minorities  in 
proportion  to  their  voting  strength.  See  La  Representa- 
tion Proportionelle  :  La  Chesnais. 


XII 

THE  GENERAI.  STRIKE  AND  REVOLU- 
TION 

When  we  speak  of  the  general  strike,  we  must 
begin  by  defining  the  words  very  clearly.  We 
are  not  concerned,  of  course,  with  the  general 
strike  of  a  single  trade.  For  instance,  when  the 
miners  of  all  France  decide  by  the  vote  of  a  ma- 
jority that  the  time  has  come  for  them  all  to 
strike  to  obtain  an  eight-hour  day,  a  higher 
pension  for  old  employés,  and  a  minimum  wage, 
it  is  a  very  important  strike,  and  may  be  called  a 
general  miners'  strike.  But  that  is  not  what  is 
meant  by  the  words  "  general  strike  "  in  the  par- 
lance of  those  who  see  in  it  the  decisive  means  of 
emancipation.  They  are  not  thinking  of  the 
limited  movement  of  one  trade,  no  matter  how 
vast  its  extent.  On  the  other  hand,  it  would  be 
puerile  to  say  that  there  could  not  be  a  general 
strike  unless  all  wage-earners,  in  all  departments 
of  production,  quit  work  simultaneously.  The 
working  class  is  too  much  dispersed  for  such 
unanimity  to  be  possible  or  even  conceivable. 
io6 


Strike  and  Revolution        107 

But  the  words  '  '  general  strike  '  '  have  another 
meaning,  verj^  precise,  and  at  the  same  time  very 
comprehensive.  They  mean  that  the  most  im- 
portant trades,  those  that  dominate  the  whole 
productive  system,  shall  stop  work  at  the  same 
time.  If,  for  instance,  the  railroad  employés,  the 
miners,  dockers,  and  longshoremen,  the  employés 
in  the  weaving  and  spinning  industries,  and 
the  building-trade  employés  in  the  great  cities, 
were  to  quit  work  simultaneously,  we  might 
say  that  there  was  a  general  strike.  Because 
to  bring  about  a  general  strike  it  is  not  neces- 
sary that  the  whole  number  of  trades  should  be  in 
line;  it  is  not  even  necessary  that  in  the  trades 
that  are  on  strike  every  single  workman  should 
go  out.  It  is  sufficient  if  those  trades  where  the 
power  of  capital  is  most  concentrated  and  the 
power  of  labour  best  organised,  and  that  are 
therefore  the  key-stone  of  the  economic  system, 
decide  on  a  suspension  of  work,  and  it  is  enough 
if  they  are  backed  up  by  such  a  large  number  of 
workmen  that  the  work  of  those  trades  is  stopped. 

It  cannot  be  objected  that  a  general  strike,  if 
this  meaning  be  given  to  the  phrase,  is  either 
chimerical  or  useless.  In  proportion  to  the 
growth  of  the  labour  movement,  the  possibility 
of  this  kind  of  concerted  action  is  increased.  And 
such  action  can  exercise  an  enormous  influence  on 
the  ruling  class.  It  is  no  longer  a  single  trade, 
no  matter  how  important,  that  refuses  to  work, 
but  a  whole  union  of  trades.     The  movement  is 


io8         Studies  in  Socialism 

no  longer,  then,  a  trade  movement;  it  has  be- 
come a  class  movement.  And  could  such  a  move- 
ment be  barren  of  important  results,  organised 
and  carried  through  as  it  would  be  by  the  essen- 
tially productive  class,  that  class  for  which  no 
substitute  can  be  found  because  none  exists  ? 

But  there  must  be  no  misunderstanding  on  this 
point.  It  must  not  be  imagined  that  there  is  a 
magic  virtue  in  the  phrase  "  general  strike,"  and 
that  the  strike  itself  is  absolutely  and  uncondi- 
tionally efficacious.  A  general  strike  is  practical 
or  chimerical,  useful  or  disastrous,  according  to 
the  conditions  under  which  it  takes  place,  the 
method  it  employs,  and  the  end  it  proposes. 

There  are,  according  to  my  opinion,  three  in- 
dispensable conditions  for  the  utility  of  a  general 
strike,  ist.  The  working  class  must  be  deeply 
and  truly  convinced  of  the  importance  of  the  ob- 
ject for  which  it  is  declared.  2d.  A  large  section 
of  public  opinion  must  be  prepared  to  recognise 
the  legitimacy  of  that  object.  3d.  The  general 
strike  must  not  seem  like  a  disguise  for  violence, 
but  simply  the  exercise  of  the  legal  right  to  strike, 
more  systematic  in  method  and  vaster  in  scope 
than  usual,  it  is  true,  and  with  a  more  clearly 
marked  class  character. 

First,  it  is  essential  that  the  body  of  organised 
labour  should  attach  very  great  importance  to  the 
object  for  which  the  strike  is  declared.  Neither 
the  decisions  of  trade-union  congresses,  nor  the 


Strike  and  Revolution        109 

orders  of  workmen's  committees  would  be  strong 
enough  to  drag  the  workers  into  a  struggle  al- 
ways formidable,  but  especially  so  under  these 
conditions.  To  brave  privation  and  misery,  even 
with  the  object  of  escaping  from  the  situation  in 
which  one  is  sunk,  requires  great  energy.  Such 
energy  cannot  be  roused  in  an  entire  class  with- 
out the  influence  of  really  passionate  feeling.  And 
this  in  its  turn  is  not  aroused  in  men's  souls  to  the 
degree  when  it  becomes  a  working  and  fighting 
force,  except  by  an  interest  both  very  close  and 
very  overwhelming,  by  a  very  important  aim  that 
can  be  immediatel)''  realised. 

For  instance,  it  is  easy  to  understand  how  the 
best  organised,  the  most  self-conscious  trades,  edu- 
cated by  a  definite  and  widespread  propaganda 
on  the  subject,  may  come  to  be  passionately  in- 
terested in  the  eight-hour  day,  in  pensions  for  old 
age  and  accidents,  and  effective  insurance  against 
non-emploj'ment.  One  can  imagine  that,  if  the 
authorities  refused  to  face  these  questions  or  op- 
posed the  workmen's  solution,  enough  energy 
and  fervour  might  be  accumulated  to  bring  about 
the  declaration  of  a  great  and  persevering  strike. 
The  working  class  is  willing  to  fight  for  definite 
and  great  ends,  for  positive,  extended,  and  im- 
mediately practicable  reforms.  Under  conditions 
such  as  these,  but  under  no  others,  the  signal 
given  by  the  labour  organisations  will  be  obeyed. 

But  even  if  the  proletariat  is  really  roused  and 
passionately  in  earnest,  that  is  not  enough.     It  is 


no         Studies  in  Socialism 

not  enough  for  it  to  follow  its  own  inner  impulse 
if  it  has  not  also  received  a  mandate  from  with- 
out. It  must  have  demonstrated  to  a  notable 
fraction  of  public  opinion  that  its  claims  are  legiti- 
mate and  immediately  realisable.  Every  general 
strike  will  necessarily  bring  about  disorders  in 
economic  relations;  it  will  upset  many  tradi- 
tions and  go  counter  to  many  interests.  The 
opinion  of  the  mass  of  the  nation  (and  even  of 
that  very  considerable  portion  of  the  wage-earn- 
ing class  who  will  not  have  taken  part  in  the 
movement)  will  therefore  be  very  emphatically 
ranged  against  those  on  whom  rests  the  responsi- 
bility for  a  prolongation  of  the  conflict.  But  this 
opinion  will  not  fix  the  responsibility  on  the  capi- 
talist class  and  will  not  condemn  it  with  any 
force,  unless  the  justice  of  the  strikers'  claims  and 
the  possibility  of  satisfying  them  immediately 
have  been  clearly  demonstrated  by  an  ardent  and 
serious  propaganda.  It  will  then  express  itself 
against  the  selfishness  of  the  great  owners,  the 
routine  or  the  selfishness  of  public  authorities, 
and  the  general  strike  will  result  in  a  notable 
success.  On  the  contrary,  if  the  neutral  masses 
have  not  been  prepared  beforehand  and  partly 
won  over,  they  will  decide  against  the  strikers. 
And  as  no  force,  even  a  revolutionary  one,  can 
hold  out  against  the  public  opinion  of  the  whole 
of  the  nation,  the  working  class  will  suffer  a 
widespread  defeat. 

Finally,  I  say  that  if  the  general  strike  is  con- 


Strike  and  Revolution        m 

ceived  and  comes  before  the  public,  not  in  the 
form  of  a  wider  and  more  perfectly  organised  ex- 
ercise of  the  legal  right  to  strike,  but  as  the  fore- 
runner of  a  movement  of  revolutionary  violence, 
it  will  at  once  set  up  a  reactionary  movement  of 
fear  which  the  more  intelligent  fraction  of  the 
proletariat  will  not  be  able  to  resist. 

There  is,  however,  another  conception  attached 
to  the  general  strike  by  some  of  the  theorisers  on 
the  subject.  They  think  that  the  general  strike 
of  the  most  important  trades  would  be  enough  to 
bring  on  the  Social  Revolution,  that  is,  the  fall  of 
the  whole  capitalist  system,  and  the  establish- 
ment of  democratic  and  proletarian  Communism. 
The  economic  life  of  the  country  would  be  sus- 
pended, railroads  would  be  deserted,  the  coal 
necessary  for  industry  would  remain  buried  un- 
derground; steamers  could  not  even  get  in  to  the 
docks,  where  no  workmen  would  unload  the  mer- 
chandise. Everywhere  there  would  be  a  stoppage 
in  circulation  and  in  production.  Naturally  great 
discomfort  would  result.  The  workers,  in  stop- 
ping exchange  and  production,  would  be  starving 
themselves,  and  would  therefore  be  forced  to  adopt 
violent  methods  in  order  to  live.  They  would 
seize  food  and  other  provisions  wherever  they 
could  lay  hands  on  them.  The  privileged  classes, 
threatened  alike  in  their  persons  and  possessions, 
would  be  shocked  and  frightened  by  the  inevita- 
ble anger  ot  the  proletariat,  whose  time-honoured 


112  Studies  in  Socialism 

suffering  would  be  intensified  by  the  crisis  of  mis- 
ery and  hunger.  Hence  would  come  inevitable 
conflicts  between  the  working  class  and  the  panic- 
stricken  guardians  of  the  capitalist  system.  At 
the  end  of  a  few  days,  then,  the  general  strike 
would  become  purely  revolutionary  in  character. 
And  as  the  capitalist  power  would  be  scattered  by 
the  very  necessity  of  keeping  watch  over  such  a 
varied  and  widespread  movement,  as  the  army  of 
repression  would  be  scattered  and  submerged  in 
the  flood,  the  proletariat  would  be  able  to  over- 
come the  obstacle  against  which  it  had  heretofore 
only  beat  itself  in  vain,  and,  master  of  the  social 
system  at  last,  would  install  labour  as  sovereign. 

That  is  the  idea.  I  do  not  say  that  it  is  as 
clear  as  that  in  the  minds  of  all  theorisers  on  the 
subject  of  the  general  strike.  I  do  not  say  that 
all  who  acclaim  it  attach  the  whole  of  this  mean- 
ing to  it.  But  I  do  say  that  for  those  who  see  in 
it  the  decisive  means  of  liberation,  it  has  that 
meaning  or  none. 

Well,  given  this  revolutionary  meaning,  I 
think  the  ideal  is  a  false  one.  First,  a  tactical 
movement  is  especially  dangerous  when  it  cannot 
fail  a  single  time  without  involving  an  immense 
disaster  for  the  whole  working  class. 

The  partisans  of  the  general  strike,  taking  the 
words  in  this  sense,  are  obliged — understand  this 
clearly  —  to  succeed  the  first  time.  If  a  general 
strike  fails,  after  having  had  recourse  to  revolu- 
tionary violence,  it  will  have  left  the  capitalist 


Strike  and  Revolution        113 

system  intact  and  armed  it  with  implacable  fury. 
The  fear  of  the  ruling  classes,  and  even  of  a  great 
part  of  the  masses,  will  express  itself  in  a  long 
succession  of  reactionary  years.  And  the  prole- 
tariat will  be  disarmed,  bound,  and  crushed,  for 
an  indefinite  period. 

But  is  there,  under  these  conditions,  a  chance 
of  success  ?  I  think  not.  In  the  first  place  the 
working  class  would  not  rouse  itself  to  action  in 
defence  of  a  general  formula,  such  as  the  advent 
of  Communism  would  be.  The  idea  of  Social 
Revolution  in  the  abstract  would  not  be  enough 
to  animate  them.  The  Socialistic  idea,  the  Com- 
munist idea,  is  strong  to  guide  and  co-ordinate 
successive  efforts  on  the  part  of  the  proletariat. 
It  is  toward  the  accomplishment  of  that  end,  to- 
wards its  gradual  realisation,  that  the  proletariat 
is  directing  its  organised  efibrt.  But  if  a  great 
movement  is  to  be  started,  it  is  essential  tha^^  the 
idea  of  Social  Revolution  should  be  embodied  in 
specific  claims. 

To  bring  the  working  class  to  the  point  of  leav- 
ing the  factories  and  of  beginning  a  battle  to  the 
death  with  all  the  powers  of  the  present  social 
system,  a  battle  full  of  uncertainty  and  peril,  it  is 
not  enough  to  cry  "  Communism  !  "  because  the 
proletarians  will  immediately  say,  "  Which  Com- 
munism?" and  "What  form  will  it  assume 
to-morrow  if  we  win  ?  '  ' 

Great  movements  are  never  set  on  foot  for  the 


114         Studies  in  Socialism 

attainment  of  remote  and  vaguely  understood 
ends.  They  need  something  solid  to  work  for: 
they  demand  a  clearly  defined,  specific  issue. 

The  most  practical  representatives  of  the  theory 
of  the  general  strike  are  perfectly  aware  of  this. 
They  propose  to  rouse  the  working  class  to  action 
in  the  first  place  by  certain  definite  claims.  And 
they  hope  that  this  movement,  when  it  has  be- 
come revolutionary  in  character,  as  it  is  certain  to 
do,  will  expand  naturally  into  a  complete  Com- 
munism. 

But  precisely  here  lies  the  essential  viciousness 
of  this  policy.  //  is  a  trick  to  eyitrap  the  working 
classes.  It  proposes  to  drag  them  in  by  an  irre- 
sistible mechanical  action,  far  deeper  than  the 
original  programme  would  have  given  them  any 
reason  to  suspect.  By  the  attraction  of  certain 
concrete,  definite,  immediate  reforms  they  are  to 
be  led  to  decide  on  the  great  operation  of  a  uni- 
versal strike,  and  it  is  supposed  that  once  they 
have  become  involved  in  the  network  of  the  ma- 
chine they  will  be  conveyed  almost  automatically 
to  the  Communist  Revolution. 

Now  I  maintain  that  in  a  democracy  this  is 
contrary  to  the  whole  spirit  of  the  Revolution.  I 
say  that  there  can  only  be  a  Revolution  where 
there  is  self-consciousness,  and  that  those  who 
construct  an  elaborate  mechanical  contrivance  to 
convey  the  proletariat  to  the  Revolution,  almost 
without  its  being  aware  of  what  is  happening,  and 
fancy  that  they  can  lead  it  to  the  point  desired  by 


Strike  and  Revolution        115 

a  sort  of  surprise,  are  going  in  a  direction  quite 
opposite  to  the  real  revolutionary  tendency. 

If  the  working  class  is  not  fully  and  definitely 
warned  at  the  outset  that  it  is  going  on  strike  for 
the  whole  Communist  Revolution;  if,  when  it 
leaves  the  mines,  the  railroads,  the  factories,  the 
yards,  it  does  not  know  that  it  is  not  to  re-enter 
them  until  it  has  accomplished  the  whole  Social 
Revolution;  if  it  is  not  prepared  and  resolved  to 
the  very  centre  of  its  being,  and  from  the  very 
beginning,  it  will  be  upset  during  the  progress  of 
the  movement  by  the  tardy  revelation  of  a  pro- 
gramme that  was  not  submitted  to  its  decision 
before  the  initial  action  was  taken.  And  no  arti- 
fice, no  conjurer's  trick,  will  be  able  to  substitute 
the  hidden  aim  suddenly  discovered  for  the  aim 
that  had  been  avowed  at  the  outset. 

To  delude  oneself  into  imagining  that  a  social 
revolution  can  result  from  a  misunderstanding, 
and  that  the  proletariat  can  be  led  on  beyond  its 
depth  is,  if  I  may  be  permitted  to  use  the  word, 
pure  childishness.  The  transformation  of  all  so- 
cial relations  cannot  be  the  result  of  a  manoeuvre. 

And  if  on  the  other  hand  the  working  class  is 
prepared  beforehand,  if  it  is  told  in  so  many  words 
that  it  is  leaving  its  work  not  to  go  back  until  it 
has  abolished  capitalism,  it  will  be  warned  by  in- 
stinct and  reflection  alike  that  a  society  as  com- 
plicated as  ours  is  not  revolutionised  by  a  popular 
rising  of  a  few  days'  duration,  but  by  an  immense 
continuous  effort  of  organisation  and  transforma- 


ii6  Studies  in  Socialism 

tion.  From  that  moment  it  will  shrink  back 
from  an  enterprise  so  vague  and  chimerical  as  one 
would  shrink  from  an  abyss. 

There  is  still  another  trick  in  the  tactics  pro- 
posed by  the  upholders  of  a  revolutionary  general 
strike.  Some  of  tlicm  say  :  "Perhaps  it  would 
not  be  very  easy  to  draw  the  proletariat  into  a 
deliberately  violent  movement.  It  has  lost  the 
habit  of  that  sort  of  thing  during  the  last  thirty 
years,  and  might  not  throw  itself  in  instantly,  at 
a  signal  from  the  militant  organisations.  The 
strike,  on  the  other  hand,  is  a  perfectly  familiar 
practice  of  the  working  class,  and  the  field  of  ac- 
tion of  strikes  is  becoming  more  and  more  ex- 
tended. It  would  therefore  be  an  easy  matter  to 
get  the  working  class  to  take  part  in  a  general 
strike.  In  the  beginning,  this  would  be  only  a 
simple  extension  of  its  ordinary  habits  of  warfare. 
Besides, —  and  this  is  an  important  point, —  it 
would  be  a  perfectly  legal  movement.  The  law 
permits  strikes;  it  does  not  and  cannot  assign  any 
limit  to  their  action.  Consequently  the  proletariat, 
in  declaring  a  general  strike,  would  know  that  it 
was  within  its  legal  rights,  and  would  go  into  the 
movement  in  the  strength  of  that  knowledge. 
Many  workmen  who  would  have  been  shocked  at 
the  premeditated  use  of  force  and  at  deliberate 
revolutionary  action,  would  not  hesitate  to  show 
their  irritation  with  social  injustice  by  a  move- 
ment which  would  be  a  menace,  but  would  not 


Strike  and  Revolution       1 1 7 

put  them  outside  the  bounds  of  law  in  the  very 
beginning  and  before  their  blood  was  up. 

"Moreover,  the  preventative  repressive  meas- 
ures of  capitalism,  if  one  may  use  the  expression, 
are  made  impossible  by  the  legal  form  that  the 
movement  would  adopt  at  the  beginning.  But 
little  by  little,  this  general  strike,  this  strike  of  a 
whole  class,  will  necessarily  become  a  great  social 
battle,  a  revolutionary  combat.  The  spirit  of  the 
working  people  will  be  roused  and  their  just  anger 
inflamed  by  suffering,  misery,  and  the  inevitable 
conflicts  that  will  bring  capital  and  labour  to 
grapple  all  along  the  line.  Even  that  part  of 
the  proletariat  that,  before  the  strike  was  on, 
would  have  shrunk  from  a  systematic  use  of  force, 
will  be  gradually  wrought  up  to  the  proper  revo- 
lutionary heat  by  the  fire  of  events,  by  the  battle 
itself  and  the  sufferings  it  entails.  Then  we  can 
count  on  an  explosion  of  the  old  order," 

If  we  look  at  the  essential  points  of  the  theory 
and  the  hope  of  a  certain  number  of  those  who 
see  in  the  general  strike  an  instrument  of  revolu- 
tion, we  shall  see  that  the  above  is  a  true  repre- 
sentation of  their  attitude.  In  their  minds  the 
general  strike  is  a  method  of  revolutionarj'  train- 
ing applied  to  a  proletariat  too  much  of  whose 
power  would  remain  inert  without  the  brutal 
excitement  of  events. 

They  do  not  any  longer  say  to  the  wage-earner, 
"Take  up  your  gun."  But  they  think  that  the 
general  strike,  perfectly  legal  in  its  beginnings. 


ii8         Studies  in  Socialism 

will  very  quickly  be  led  to  arming  itself  with  its 
gun  or  any  other  violent  weapon  that  comes  to 
hand.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  then,  they  count  on 
the  revolutionary  force  of  events  to  supplement 
or  complete  the  insufficient  revolutionary  force 
of  men. 

I  have  a  perfect  right  to  say  that  this  is  a  revo- 
lutionary trick.  And  like  every  machine  that 
has  not  been  tested  by  repeated  experiments  be- 
fore it  is  put  to  a  decisive  use,  this  one  is  bound 
to  disillusionise  in  many  ways  those  confiding 
men  who  expect  the  greatest  results  from  it.  To 
work  up  by  artificial  means  a  revolutionary  ex- 
citement which  the  ordinary  action  of  suffering, 
misery,  and  injustice  has  not  been  strong  enough 
to  produce,  is  a  very  hazardous  enterprise. 

It  has  been  said  that  revolutions  are  not  de- 
creed. It  may  be  said  with  still  greater  truth 
that  they  cannot  be  manufactured;  and  that  no 
machinery  of  conflict,  no  matter  how  vast  or  how 
ingenious,  can  replace  the  revolutionary  prepara- 
tion of  events  and  men's  minds.  It  will  not  do 
first  to  postulate  the  general  strike  and  then  ex- 
pect the  Revolution  to  succeed  as  an  inevitable 
consequence.  It  is  perfectly  possible  that  the 
proletariat,  needing  as  they  do  the  pretext  and 
even  the  illusion  of  legality  to  lure  them  into  the 
movement  in  the  beginning,  will  shrink  from  the 
use  of  force  when  the  pretext  is  unmasked  and 
the  illusion  vanished.  The  die  cast  into  the  air 
may  possibly  fall  on  the  side  of  violence;  it  may 


Strike  and  Revolution        119 

also  fall  on  the  side  of  inertia.  Now,  the  dice- 
box  cannot  be  held  in  the  hand  for  long,  or  the 
game  begun  again  an  indefinite  number  of  times. 
At  all  events  it  is  possible  that  there  will  be  a 
great  deal  of  haziness,  confusion,  and  contradiction 
in  this  movement,  the  leaders  of  which  will  have 
counted  more  on  the  unconscious  and  obscure 
force  of  events  than  on  the  resolute  force  of  indi- 
vidual consciousness.  At  one  point,  the  conflict 
may,  as  expected,  result  in  a  revolutionary  move- 
ment; at  another  it  will  keep  its  legal  form  and 
be  extinguished  in  inaction.  The  revolutionary 
movement,  lacking  that  basis  and  solid  founda- 
tion which  the  deliberate  free-will  of  men  alone 
can  give,  will  be  delivered  into  the  power  of  local 
events,  and  the  machinery  of  revolution  will  not 
take  hold  everywhere  in  the  same  way.  Hence 
will  come  discord,  discouragement,  and  defeat. 
It  is  perfectly  true  historically  that  events  which 
were  at  first  limited  in  scope  and  harmless  in  ap- 
pearance have  resulted  in  vast  and  unforeseen 
conclusions.  But  it  is  utterly  impossible  to  rely 
on  this  growth,  and  there  is  no  known  process, 
not  even  the  general  strike,  which  can  inevitably 
produce  the  Revolution  as  an  outcome  of  a  move- 
ment whose  beginnings  were  legal. 

Moreover, — and  this  is  an  especial  illusion  of 
many  militant  Socialists, — it  has  not  been  proved 
at  all  that  the  general  strike,  even  if  it  does 
take  on  a  revolutionary  character,  will  force  the 


I20  Studies  in  Socialism 

capitalist  system  to  capitulate.  Bourgeois  society 
will  set  up  a  resistance  proportional  to  the  mag- 
nitude of  the  interests  at  stake.  In  other  words, 
to  a  revolutionary  general  strike  that  will  require 
of  it  the  sacrifice  of  its  very  existence,  it  will  op- 
pose a  resistance  up  to  the  limit  of  its  powers. 

Now,  neither  a  stoppage  of  production  and 
transportation,  nor  even  extended  violence  to 
property  and  persons,  is  enough  to  bring  about 
the  overthrow  of  a  society.  No  matter  how 
powerful  one  supposes  the  effects  of  a  general 
revolutionary  strike  to  be,  they  can  hardly  exceed 
those  of  great  wars  and  great  invasions.  Great 
wars,  too,  put  a  stop  to  or  very  much  upset  pro- 
duction, suspend  or  hinder  trafiic,  and  throw  all 
economic  life  into  a  confusion  which  one  might 
suppose  fatal.  Notwithstanding  all  this,  societies 
resist  these  almost  deadly  crises,  these  apparently 
insuperable  evils,  with  the  most  extraordinary 
vitality. 

I  am  not  speaking  of  the  Hundred  Years' 
War  in  France,  or  the  Thirty  Years'  War  in  Ger- 
many. Then  society  kept  its  form  in  spite  of 
unheard-of  trials, — brigandage,  sieges,  famines, 
burnings,  perpetual  fighting  and  ravaging  of 
whole  tracts  of  country.  But  in  more  modern 
societies,  in  bourgeois  society  itself,  what  pro- 
digious upheavals!  Since  the  last  half  of  1793 
the  society  that  was  the  creation  of  the  Revolu- 
tion has  suffered  and  has  even  inflicted  on  itself 
in  its  ov/n  defence  injuries  that  doubtless  no  gen- 


Strike  and  Revolution        121 

eral  strike  can  equal.  A  considerable  proportion 
of  the  most  useful  part  of  the  population,  one 
million  five  hundred  thousand  men  out  of  a  popu- 
lation of  twenty-five  millions,  are  torn  from  the 
fields  and  workshops  and  thrown  to  the  frontiers. 
Civil  war  is  raging  at  the  same  time  as  foreign 
war.  The  Vendée,  Brittany,  the  South,  Lyons, 
are  up  and  in  flames.  One  half  of  France  is  in 
arms  against  the  other  half.  A  dry  and  very  hot 
summer  has  brought  a  poor  harvest.  Wheat  does 
not  circulate  easily,  each  district  wishing  to  keep 
for  itself  as  much  grain  as  possible.  Although 
Paris  is  not  invested  it  is  subjected  to  a  real  state 
of  siege:  the  people  have  to  stand  in  line  at  the 
door  of  the  bakeshops,  regular  rations  are  estab- 
lished; bread  is  rare.  The  depreciation  of  paper 
money  throws  all  transactions  into  confusion .  But 
in  spite  of  all  these  difficulties  France  keeps  enough 
vital  force,  revolutionary  society  has  enough  spring 
left,  first  to  defend  itself  and  later  to  take  up  offen- 
sive tactics  again.  One  can  take  a  city  by  famine 
and  by  force;  but  a  whole  society  is  not  captured 
by  these  means.  It  has  to  deliver  itself. 

In  1870-71  one  third  of  France  is  occupied  by 
the  enemy;  Paris  is  besieged;  civil  war  follows 
upon  foreign;  a  formidable  indemnity  is  imposed 
on  the  nation,  but  notwithstanding  all  this  the 
deep  springs  of  life  are  not  touched,  and  the  mo- 
ment peace  is  declared  they  gush  forth  again  in 
marvellous  abundance. 


122  Studies  in  Socialism 

And  even  supposing  that  a  general  revolution- 
ary strike  does  succeed  in  closing  all  ports,  in 
immobilising  all  locomotives,  in  destroying  rail- 
roads, even  in  occupying  as  sovereign  certain 
regions  that  are  especially  given  over  to  the 
labouring  class,  and  in  menacing  and  reducing 
the  food-supply  of  certain  great  cities  and  of  the 
capital;  in  spite  of  all  this,  necessity,  so  ingenious 
in  the  face  of  difiSculties,  will  bring  innumerable 
new  resources  to  light.  Consumption  and  the 
social  life  of  the  community  will  if  necessary  be 
enormously  reduced,  and  human  nature  will  ac- 
commodate itself  to  tragic  privations,  just  as  at 
the  end  of  a  siege  it  accommodates  itself  to  a 
regime  the  bare  idea  of  which,  a  few  months  be- 
fore, would  have  made  the  bravest  man  tremble. 
And  if  bourgeois  society  and  private  property  will 
not  give  way,  if  the  great  majority  of  citizens  is 
opposed  to  the  new  social  order  that  the  general 
strike  wishes  to  install  by  a  coup  de  surprise,  then 
bourgeois  society  and  private  property  will  find  a 
way  to  live,  to  defend  themselves,  and  gradually 
to  rally  the  forces  of  conservatism  and  reaction, 
even  in  the  confusion  and  disorder  of  economic 
life. 

Some  imagine,  it  is  true,  that  the  general  strike, 
breaking  out  at  many  points  simultaneously, 
would  oblige  the  capitalist  and  proprietary  gov- 
ernment to  spread  its  armed  force  over  such  a 
large  area  that  it  would  be  practically  absorbed 
by  the  Revolution.     This  conception  is  extremely 


Strike  and  Revolution        123 

ingenuous.  The  bourgeois  government  would 
devote  itself  first  of  all  to  the  protection  of  the 
public  authorities,  the  assemblies,  in  which,  by 
the  will  of  the  majority  itself,  legal  power  would 
reside.  If  they  could  not  do  everything  at  once, 
they  would  abandon  if  necessary  the  railroads 
and  the  regions  where  the  Revolution  was  best 
organised  to  the  strikers;  they  would  give  their 
attention  to  the  concentration  of  their  forces  and, 
backed  by  the  enormous  prestige  that  the  will  of 
the  legal  representatives  of  the  nation  would  give, 
they  would  not  hesitate  to  strike  some  heavy 
blow,  and  would  then  re-occupy  the  regions 
abandoned  in  the  first  instance  and  re-establish 
communications,  just  as  they  are  re-established  in 
a  few  days  in  a  country  that  an  enemy  has  re- 
cently evacuated  after  tearing  up  the  railroads 
and  destroying  the  bridges.  Even  if  Paris  were 
for  a  moment  lost  to  the  authorities,  as  it  was 
in  187 1, — and,  considering  the  different  social  ele- 
ments of  which  Paris  is  composed,  this  cannot  be 
taken  for  granted, — it  would  be  enough  for  them 
to  have  a  meeting-place  and  to  wait  in  safety,  as 
the  King  of  France  waited  at  Bourges,  and  M. 
Thiers  at  Versailles,  the  entry  of  the  conservative 
forces.  And  they  would  enter  of  their  own  ac- 
cord without  delay.  No  one  should  forget  that, 
with  the  shooting  clubs  and  gymnasiums  that  are 
so  much  under  reactionary  influence,  the  habits 
of  outdoor  sports  so  fashionable  in  the  upper  and 
middle  classes,  and  the  military  training  of  the 


124  Studies  in  Socialism 

proprietary  classes,  these  proprietors,  the  capital- 
ists both  great  and  small,  and  the  angry  shop- 
keepers would  be  capable  even  of  a  very  vigorous 
use  of  force. 

And  what  would  the  Revolution  be  doing  all 
this  time  ?  In  those  regions  where  it  would  have 
seemed  victorious  at  first,  it  would  only  be  able  to 
eat  its  heart  out  on  the  spot,  and  exhaust  itself  in 
useless  violence.  The  liberal  revolutions  of  1830 
and  1848  had  a  very  definite  end  in  view — to  over- 
throw the  existing  government  and  to  replace  it. 
The  revolutionary  blows  of  Blanqui  were  always 
calculated  to  strike  at  the  head  and  heart.  He 
did  not  waste  his  strength;  on  the  contrary,  he 
concentrated  it  to  attack  one  or  two  vital  parts  of 
the  political  system  of  government. 

The  revolutionary  method  of  the  general  strike 
is  the  exact  opposite.  Precisely  because  it  gives 
an  economic  turn  to  the  combat  in  the  beginning, 
it  does  not  supply  the  working-class  forces  with 
a  single  central  aim  on  which  they  can  unite. 
They  will  stay  on  the  spot,  at  the  mouth  of  the 
deserted  pit,  on  the  threshold  of  the  abandoned 
factory.  Or  if  the  proletarians  take  possession  of 
the  mine  and  the  factory,  it  will  be  a  perfectly 
fictitious  ownership.  They  will  be  embracing  a 
corpse,  for  the  mines  and  factories  will  be  no 
better  than  dead  bodies  while  economic  circula- 
tion is  suspended  and  production  is  stopped.  So 
long   as  a  class  does  not  own  and  govern  the 


Strike  and  Revolution        125 

whole  social  machine,  it  can  seize  a  few  factories 
and  yards  if  it  wants  to,  but  it  really  possesses 
nothing.  To  hold  in  one's  hands  a  few  pebbles 
of  a  deserted  road  is  not  to  be  master  of  trans- 
portation. 

Destruction  will  be  the  only  resource  open  to 
the  working  class,  astonished  as  it  will  be  at  its 
powerlessness  in  the  midst  of  an  apparent  victory. 
But  what  good  would  acts  of  destruction  accom- 
plish except  to  give  a  savage  character  to  the 
rising  of  the  proletariat  ?  Observe  that  the  tactics 
of  a  general  strike  have  for  their  object  and  do 
indeed  result  in  the  decomposition,  the  infinite 
subdivision  of  economic  life.  To  stop  the  loco- 
motives, tie  up  the  steamers,  and  deprive  industry 
of  coal,  is  to  substitute  the  scattered  life  of  in- 
numerable local  groups  for  the  unified  and  gen- 
eral life  of  the  nation.  Now  this  cutting-up 
and  subdivision  of  life  is  exactly  counter  to  the 
Revolution. 

The  bourgeois  Revolution  was  accomplished  by 
groups  that  drew  closer  and  closer  together  with 
Paris  as  a  central  bond.  Every  great  revolution 
presupposes  an  exaltation  of  life,  and  this 
exaltation  is  only  possible  when  there  is  that 
consciousness  of  unity  produced  by  the  ardent 
intercommunication  of  strength  and  enthusiasm. 
And  the  proletariat  will  accomplish  its  revolution 
by  the  organisation,  both  in  the  political  and 
economic  world,  of  strong  class  representation 
and  class  action,  which  will  penetrate  and  bind 


126         Studies  in  Socialism 

together  all  phases  of  their  life.  Division  is  a 
return  to  feudalism.  The  stoppage  of  transporta- 
tion proposed  by  the  supporters  of  the  general 
strike  would  force  society  to  revert  to  the  con- 
ditions of  an  inferior  civilisation. 

We  should  see  isolated  groups  gathered  pas- 
sively about  the  oligarchical  owners  and  depend- 
ent on  them  for  their  supply  of  the  accumulated 
means  of  subsistence.  The  rich  would  be  tempo- 
rary kings,  social  chiefs,  and  feudal  lords  in 
many  country  districts  and  small  towns.  And 
little  by  little,  all  these  small  sovereignties  and 
tiny  oligarchies  would  co-ordinate  their  strength 
to  surround  and  crush  the  motionless  and  shame- 
faced Revolution,  that,  thinking  to  deprive  the 
Government  of  all  means  of  communication, 
would  have  succeeded  only  in  isolating  and 
breaking  up  its  own  forces. 

It  is,  then,  perfectly  chimerical  to  hope  that 
the  revolutionary  tactics  of  a  general  strike  would 
enable  even  a  bold,  self-conscious,  and  active  pro- 
letarian minority  to  quicken  the  march  of  events 
by  force.  No  trick,  no  machinery  of  surprise, 
can  free  Socialism  from  the  necessity  of  winning 
over  the  majority  of  the  nation  by  propaganda 
and  legal  methods. 

Does  this  mean  that  the  idea  of  a  general  strike 
is  useless,  that  it  is  a  negligible  quantity  in  the 
vast  social  movement  ?  Not  for  a-  moment.  In 
the  first  place,  I  have  already  shown  under  what 


Strike  and  Revolution        127 

conditions  and  in  what  form  it  could  hasten  social 
evolution  and  the  advancement  of  the  cause  of 
labour.  In  the  second  place,  that  such  an  idea 
could  have  appealed  to  any  class  as  a  possible 
means  of  liberation  ought  to  be  a  terrible  and  de- 
cisive warning  to  society.  What!  the  working 
class  is  the  main  supporter  of  the  whole  social 
order;  it  is  the  creator,  the  producer.  If  it  stops, 
then  everything  stops.  And  one  might  speak  of 
it  in  the  magnificent  phrase  that  Mirabeau,  the 
first  prophet  of  the  general  strike,  used  of  the 
Third  Estate,  still  united  then  as  workmen  and 
bourgeois.  "  Take  care,"  he  cried  to  the  privi- 
leged classes,  "  do  not  irritate  this  people,  that 
produces  everything,  and  that,  to  make  itself  for- 
midable, has  only  to  become  motionless." 

The  owning  and  governing  class  has  as  yet 
learned  to  surrender  too  small  a  part  of  real  power 
to  this  proletariat,  the  possessor  of  such  formida- 
ble negative  force,  which  at  any  moment  it  may 
be  tempted  to  use.  The  owners  have  given,  or 
rather  they  have  allowed  the  working  class  to 
retain,  so  small  a  measure  of  confidence  in  the 
efficacy  of  legal  evolution,  that  this  class  is  fascin- 
ated more  and  more  by  the  idea  of  refusing  to 
work  at  all.  Labour  dreaming  of  refusing  its 
service,  the  heart  meditating  stopping;  that  is 
the  profound  internal  crisis  to  which  we  have 
been  brought  by  the  selfishness  and  blindness  of 
the  privileged  classes,  the  absence  of  any  definite 
plan  of  action  on  our  part.     Toward  this  abyss  of 


128         Studies  in  Socialism 

a  revolutionary  general  strike  the  proletariat  is 
feeling  itself  more  and  more  drawn,  at  the  risk 
not  only  of  ruining  itself  should  it  fall  over,  but 
of  dragging  down  with  it  for  years  to  come 
either  the  wealth  or  the  security  of  the  national 
life. 

The  general  strike,  quite  powerless  as  a  revo- 
lutionary method,  is  none  the  less  in  its  very  idea 
a  revolutionary  index  of  the  highest  importance. 
It  is  a  prodigious  warning  to  the  privileged 
classes,  rather  than  a  means  of  liberation  for  the 
exploited  classes.  It  is  a  dull  menace  in  the  very 
heart  of  capitalist  society  that,  even  if  it  comes  to 
nothing  in  the  end  but  an  impotent  outburst,  is 
witness  to  an  organic  disorder  that  can  only  be 
healed  by  a  great  transformation. 

Finally,  if  the  governing  class  were  mad  enough 
to  lay  hands  on  the  poor  liberties  that  have  been 
won,  the  wretchedly  insufficient  means  of  action 
of  the  proletariat,  if  they  threatened  or  attacked 
universal  suffrage,  if  by  the  persecution  of  em- 
ployers and  the  police  they  made  the  right  to 
unite  in  trades-unions  and  the  right  to  strike 
empty  forms,  then  a  violent  general  strike  would 
be  certainly  the  form  that  a  labour  revolt  would 
take,  it  would  be  their  final  and  desperate  re- 
course, more  as  a  means  of  injuring  the  enemy 
than  of  saving  themselves. 

But  the  working  class  would  be  the  dupe  of  a 
fatal  illusion  and  a  sort  of  unhealthy  obsession  if 
it  mistook  what  can  be  only  the  tactics  of  despair 


Strike  and  Revolution        129 

for  a  method  of  revolution.  Apart  from  those 
convulsive  upheavals  that  escape  all  forecast  and 
are  sometimes  the  final  supreme  resource  of  history 
brought  to  bay,  there  is  only  one  sovereign  method 
for  Socialism — the  conquest  of  a  legal  majority. 


XIII 
THE  QUESTION  OF  METHOD 

The  Socialist  party  is  split  into  factions  at  the 
present  time/  and  I  might  be  accused  of  dream- 
ing of  a  "  mystic  union  "  if  I  were  to  say  that 
these  divisions  were  really  only  superficial.  I  do 
not  think  that  they  are  irreconcilable,  but  that 
they  come  from  serious  differences  of  opinion,  or 
rather  from  serious  misconceptions,  in  regard  to 
the  method  to  be  pursued.  It  is  the  very  devel- 
opment of  our  party,  the  growing  power  of  our 
idea, — I  must  be  forgivin  this  optimistic  back- 
sliding,— that  have  created  these  differences  of 
opinion  by  forcing  us  all  to  offer  some  solution  to 
the  question  of  method.  How  shall  Socialism  be 
realised  ?  That  is  a  problem  we  cannot  evade  ; 
and  to  make  vague  and  uncertain  answers  is  to 
evade  it.  Or,  on  the  other  hand,  if  we  bring  for- 
ward in  I  go  I  the  answers  of  our  predecessors 
and  our  masters  of  fifty  years  ago,  we  deceive 
ourselves. 

There  is  one  undoubted  fact  which  transcends 


'  Written  in  1901.    The  party  was  reunited  in  1905. 
See  Introduction. 

130 


The  Question  of  Method      131 

all  others.  This  is  that  the  proletariat  is  growing 
in  numbers,  in  solidarity,  and  in  self-conscious- 
ness. The  wage-earning  and  the  salaried  classes, 
having  increased  in  numbers  and  organised  into 
groups,  have  now  attained  to  an  ideal.  They  no 
longer  limit  their  hopes  to  the  abolition  of  the 
worst  faults  of  the  present  society;  they  now  wish 
to  create  a  social  order  founded  on  an  altogether 
different  principle.  Instead  of  the  regime  of  pri- 
vate and  capitalistic  ownership  of  property,  under 
which  it  is  possible  for  one  part  of  mankind  to 
lord  it  over  the  other  part,  they  wish  to  institute 
a  system  of  universal  social  co-operation  which 
shall  make  of  every  man  a  legal  partner.  Their 
thought  has  broken  away  from  bourgeois  thought, 
their  action  from  bourgeois  action.  They  have 
their  own  organisation  which  they  put  at  the  serv- 
ice of  their  Communist  ideal.  This  is  a  class 
organisation  based  on  the  growing  power  of  the 
trades-unions  and  the  workmen's  co-operative 
societies,  and  the  increasing  share  of  strictly  po- 
litical power  that  they  have  obtained  in  the  State 
or  over  the  State.  All  Socialists  agree  to  this 
general  and  elementary  conception  of  the  situa- 
tion. They  may  assign  different  reasons  for  the 
growth  of  the  proletariat,  or  rather  they  may  lay 
different  stress  on  the  same  reasons.  They  may 
magnify  either  the  power  of  economic  organisa- 
tion or  of  political  activity.  But  they  all  realise 
that  by  the  necessary  evolution  of  capital  that  is 
developed  by  modern  industry,  and  by  the  corre- 


132  Studies  in  Socialism 

spending  action  of  the  proletariat,  this  class  has 
gained  an  indefinitely  increasing  power  which  is 
called  upon  to  transform  the  very  system  of  owner- 
ship itself. 

Socialists  differ  also  about  the  scope  and  form 
that  the  class  action  of  the  proletariat  should  take. 
Some  think  that  it  ought  to  be  involved  as  little 
as  possible  in  the  conflicts  of  the  social  organisa- 
tion it  is  to  destroy,  and  that  all  its  energy  should 
be  reserved  for  the  final  act  by  which  society  shall 
be  liberated.  Others  hold  that  it  ought  to  exer- 
cise its  great  human  function  from  now  on.  At 
the  Socialist  Congress  held  recently  at  Vienna, 
Kaustky  '  brought  up  the  famous  saying  of  Las- 
salle  :  '  '  The  Proletariat  is  the  rock  on  which  the 
Church  of  the  future  shall  be  built."  And  he 
added:  "  The  Proletariat  is  not  only  that.  It  is 
also  the  rock  against  which,  from  now  on,  the 
reactionary  forces  will  dash  themselves  and  be 
broken.  '  '  And  for  my  part  I  say  that  it  is  not  only 
a  rock,  in  other  words,  a  compact  and  motionless 
force  of  resistance;  it  is  a  vast  force,  united  in- 
deed, but  active,  which  can  mingle  in  all  great 
movements  without  being  dispersed,  and  which 
grows  in  strength  and  energy  by  its  contact  with 
the  life  of  the  whole.  But  all  of  us,  no  matter 
what  scope  or  importance  we  assign  to  the  class- 
activity  of  the  proletariat,  regard  it  as  an  auto- 


•  Kaustky  is  one  of  the  leading  Marxists,  and  editor  of 
Die  neue  Zeit,  the  oflficial  review  of  the  German  party. 


The  Question  of  Method      133 

nomous  power,  which  can  co-operate  with  other 
powers,  but  is  never  absorbed  by  them,  and  always 
keeps  its  own  special  character  for  its  separate  and 
superior  task. 

To  Marx  belongs  the  merit,  perhaps  the  only 
one  of  all  attributed  to  him  that  has  fully  with- 
stood the  trying  tests  of  criticism  and  of  time,  of 
having  drawn  together  and  unified  the  labour 
movement  and  the  Socialist  idea.  In  the  first 
third  of  the  nineteenth  century  labour  struggled 
and  fought  against  the  crushing  power  of  capital; 
but  it  was  not  conscious  icself  toward  what  end  it 
was  straining;  it  did  not  know  that  the  true  ob- 
jective of  its  effort  was  the  common  ownership  of 
property.  And,  on  the  other  hand.  Socialism  did 
not  know  that  the  labour  movement  was  the  liv- 
ing form  in  which  its  spirit  was  embodied,  the 
concrete  practical  force  of  which  it  stood  in  need. 
Marx  was  the  most  clearly  convinced  and  the 
most  powerful  among  those  who  put  an  end  to 
the  empiricism  of  the  labour  movement  and  the 
Utopianism  of  the  Socialist  thought,  and  this 
should  always  be  remembered  to  his  credit.  By 
a  crowning  application  of  the  Hegelian  method, 
he  united  the  Idea  and  the  Fact,  thought  and 
history.  He  enriched  the  practical  movement  by 
the  idea,  and  to  the  theory  he  added  practice  :  he 
brought  the  Socialist  thought  into  proletarian  life, 
and  proletarian  life  into  Socialist  thought.  From 
that  time  on,  Socialism  and  the  proletariat  became 
inseparable.     Socialism  can  only  realise  its  ideal 


134  Studies  in  Socialism 

through  the  victory  of  the  proletariat,  and  the 
proletariat  can  only  complete  its  being  through 
the  victory  of  Socialism, 

To  the  ever  more  pressing  question,  "  How 
shall  Socialism  be  realised?"  we  must  then  give 
the  preliminary  answer,  "  By  the  growth  of  the 
proletariat  to  which  it  is  inseparably  joined." 
This  is  the  first  and  essential  answer;  and  who- 
ever refuses  to  accept  it  wholly  and  in  its  true 
sense  necessarily  places  himself  outside  of  Social- 
ist life  and  thought.  And  this  answer,  vague 
though  it  is,  is  not  empty  of  meaning,  because  it 
implies  the  obligation  of  each  one  of  us  to  be  dili- 
gent in  helping  forward  to  our  utmost  the  thought, 
the  organisation,  the  activity,  and  the  life  of  the 
labouring  classes.  Indeed,  in  a  certain  sense, 
this  answer  is  the  only  sure  one.  For  it  is  im- 
possible for  us  to  know  with  any  certainty  by  ex- 
actly what  means,  in  what  manner,  and  at  what 
moment,  our  political  and  social  evolution  will 
reach  the  Communist  ideal.  But  what  is  certain 
is  that  the  evolution  is  hastened,  the  forward 
movement  vivified,  enlarged,  and  deepened  by 
everything  that  increases  the  intellectual,  eco- 
nomic, and  political  power  of  the  proletariat. 

But  this  first  answer,  important  and  valid  as  it 
is,  is  not  a  sufiBcient  one.  Because  the  proletariat 
has  already  grown  in  numbers  and  force  and  be- 
cause it  has  begun  to  make  its  power  felt  in  the 
machinery  of  economics  and  politics,  for  that  very 
reason  the  question  arises,  "  What  shall  be  the 


The  Question  of  Method      135 

mechanism  by  which  the  coming  victory  shall  be 
obtained?"  In  proportion  as  the  proletarian 
power  increases  in  self-consciousness  it  becomes 
embodied  in  definite  forms  ;  in  universal  suffrage, 
in  trades-unions,  co-operative  societies,  and  the 
various  branches  of  the  public  service  in  the 
democratic  State  And  we  cannot  treat  the  power 
of  the  proletariat  apart  from  the  forms  in  which  it 
has  already  organised  itself,  the  machinery  that 
it  has  already  partially  adapted  to  its  own  uses. 
We  have,  then,  reached  the  time  when  it  is  no 
longer  Utopian  to  try  to  find  out  with  a  certain 
amount  of  precision  what  method  the  growing 
Socialist  idea  will  adopt  to  bring  about  its  com- 
plete realisation.  To  ask  this  is  not  to  separate 
ourselves  from  the  life  of  the  proletariat,  by  re- 
turning to  the  realm  of  Utopian  conjecture;  it  is, 
on  the  contrary,  to  bind  ourselves  more  closely  to 
that  life,  to  grow  with  it,  to  become  more  fixed 
in  our  ideas  as  it  defines  itself  more  and  more 
clearly.  For  that  life  is  no  longer  "  the  spirit 
moving  over  the  face  of  the  waters  "  ;  it  is  already 
incorporated  in  institutions,  both  economic  and 
political  (universal  suffrage,  democracy,  trades- 
unions,  co-operative  societies),  that  have  reached 
a  definite  stage  of  development  and  acquired  a 
power  and  a  policy;  and  it  behooves  us  to  know 
whether  the  Communism  of  the  proletariat  can  be 
realised  by  these  means,  or  whether,  on  the  other 
hand,  it  can  only  be  brought  about  by  a  decisive 
rupture  with  existing  institutions. 


136         Studies  in  Socialism 

To  tell  the  truth,  Socialists  have  always  tried 
to  foresee  and  predetermine  the  form  and  the  his- 
torical setting  of  the  ultimate  triumph  of  Social- 
ism. And  the  reason  for  our  present  disquiet, 
for  the  sense  of  uncertainty  and  unrest  that  op- 
presses our  party,  is  that  the  needs  of  a  new  era, 
hardly  formulated  as  yet,  are  still  mingled  in  one 
confused  mass  with  the  partly  outgrown  theories 
of  action  bequeathed  to  us  by  our  masters. 

Marx  and  Blauqui  both  believed  that  the  prole- 
tariat would  seize  the  power  by  means  of  a  revo- 
lution. But  of  the  two,  Marx's  thought  is  much 
the  more  complex.  His  revolutionary  method 
was  many-sided,  and  it  is  therefore  his  concep- 
tion that  I  wish  particularly  to  discuss.  It  is 
the  result  of  worn-out  historical  hypotheses,  or 
of  inexact  economic  hypotheses. 

In  the  first  place,  Marx's  mind  was  full  of 
memories  of  the  French  Revolution,  and  of  the 
other  revolutions  in  France  and  Europe  that  were 
a  prolongation  of  the  first.  The  trait  that  all  the 
revolutionary  movements,  from  1789  to  1796,  and 
from  1830  to  1848,  had  in  common  was  that  they 
were  revolutionary  movements  of  bourgeois  origin 
in  which  the  working  class  joined  and  beyond 
which  it  wished  to  go.  In  all  that  long  period 
the  working  class  was  not  strong  enough  to  at- 
tempt a  revolution  for  its  own  benefit;  neither 
was  it  strong  enough  to  take  the  leadership  of 
the  revolution  little  by  little  according  to  the  new 
legal  means  at  his  disposal.     Two  things,  how- 


The  Question  of  Method      137 

ever,  it  could  and  did  do.  First,  it  tried  its 
strength,  and  increased  it,  by  joining  in  all  the 
revolutionary  movements;  it  took  advantage  of 
the  dangers  that  the  new  order  had  to  face, 
threatened  as  it  was  by  all  the  reactionary  ele- 
ments, to  become  a  power  whose  support  was 
necessary  to  that  order.  In  the  second  place, 
when  it  had  grown  in  power  and  importance, 
when  hope  and  ambition  were  stirring  in  the 
hearts  of  the  proletariat,  when  the  different  revo- 
lutionary factions  of  the  bourgeoisie  were  ex- 
hausted or  discredited  by  their  internal  dissen- 
sions, the  working  class  tried  to  take  possession 
of  the  revolution  and  turn  it  to  its  own  uses,  by 
a  sort  of  co2ip  de  surprise.  Thus,  in  the  French 
Revolution  in  1793,  the  Parisian  proletariat  made 
itself  felt  in  the  Convention  by  means  of  the 
Commune,  and  sometimes  even  exercised  a  sort 
of  dictatorship.  Thus,  a  little  later,  Babeuf  and 
his  friends  tried  to  seize  the  revolutionary  power 
by  a  sudden  and  unexpected  move  for  the  benefit 
of  the  working  class.  Thus  again  after  1830  the 
French  proletariat,  after  having  played  in  the 
July  Revolution  the  great  part  noted  by  Armand 
Carrel,  tried  to  urge  on  the  victorious  bourgeoisie 
and  by  and  by  to  outstrip  it. 

It  was  this  rhythm  of  revolution  that  at  first  cap- 
tured the  imagination  of  Marx.  Certainlj'  he  knew 
very  well,  when  in  November,  1847,  ^^  wrote  the 
Conijnunist Manifesto  with  Kngels,  that  the  prole- 
tariat had  grown;  he  looked  upon  it   as  the  true 


138         Studies  in  Socialism 

revolutionary  power;  and  it  was  against  the  bour- 
geoisie that  the  Revolution  was  to  be  undertaken. 

He  writes:  "  The  development  of  industry  of 
which  the  middle  class,  without  either  premedita- 
tion or  resistance,  has  become  the  agent,  far  from 
maintaining  the  workers  in  the  isolated  situation 
of  competitors,  has  brought  about  their  revolu- 
tionary solidarity  by  forcing  them  to  become  as- 
sociates for  a  common  end.  Thus  the  growth  of 
Modern  Industry  cuts  at  the  very  foundations  of 
that  system  of  production  and  appropriation  of  the 
products  on  which  the  bourgeoisie  depends.  The 
bourgeoisie  is  manufacturing  as  its  chief  product 
its  own  grave-diggers.  Its  ruin  and  the  triumph 
of  the  proletariat  are  equally  inevitable." 

And  again:  "The  immediate  object  of  the 
Communists  is  the  same  as  that  of  all  the  other 
proletarian  parties:  the  organisation  of  the  prole- 
tariat as  a  class,  the  overthrow  of  bourgeois  su- 
premacy, and  the  conquest  of  political  power  by 
the  proletariat."  And  here  again  is  a  very 
definite  statement:  "  We  have  followed  the  more 
or  less  veiled  civil  war  raging  within  our  present 
society  to  the  point  where  that  war  will  break  out 
into  open  revolution,  and  where  by  the  violent 
overthrow  of  the  bourgeoisie  the  proletariat  will 
establish  its  dominion."  It  is,  then,  by  a  violent 
revolution  against  the  middle  class  that  the 
working  class  is  to  grasp  the  power  and  realise 
Communism.  But  at  the  same  time  it  seems  to 
Marx  that  the  signal  for  the  struggle  is  to  come 


The  Question  of  Method      139 

from  the  bourgeoisie  itself,  which  has  still  to 
complete  its  own  revolution.  The  bourgeoisie 
will  strike  at  absolutism,  or  what  there  is  left  of 
it,  at  feudalism  or  its  remnants;  and  when  it  has 
given  the  preliminary  impetus,  by  setting  free  the 
forces  that  bring  about  crises,  the  proletariat, 
more  powerful  to-day  than  the  Levellers  of  Lil- 
burne  in  the  English  Revolution  of  1648,  or  the 
proletarians  of  Chaumette  in  1793,  will  take  pos- 
session in  a  revolutionary  manner  of  the  bour- 
geois revolution.  It  will  begin  by  fighting  side 
by  side  with  the  bourgeoisie,  but  as  soon  as  the 
latter  becomes  victorious,  it  will  expropriate  it  of 
the  fruits  of  victory. 

"  In  Germany,"  Marx  and  Engels  wrote  in 
1847,  "  the  Communist  party  will  fight  with  the 
bourgeoisie  whenever  it  takes  up  its  revolutionary 
rôle  again;  it  will  join  with  it  in  combating  ab- 
solute monarchy,  feudal  squirearchy,  and  the 
petty  bourgeoisie.  But  it  will  never  cease  for  a 
single  instant  to  rouse  among  the  workers  the 
clearest  possible  consciousness  of  the  antagonism 
that  exists  between  the  bourgeoisie  and  the  prole- 
tariat, and  makes  them  enemies.  The  social  and 
political  conditions  that  will  accompany  the  tri- 
umph of  the  bourgeoisie  are  so  many  weapons 
which  the  German  workman  will  know  how  to 
turn  against  the  bourgeoisie  itself.  After  the 
downfall  of  the  reactionary  classes  in  Germany, 
the  fight  against  the  bourgeoisie  must  be  begun 
without  delay. 


I40         Studies  in  Socialism 

"  On  Germany  especially  the  eyes  of  all  Com- 
munists will  be  fixed,  because  Germany  is  on  the 
eve  of  a  bourgeois  revolution,  which  will  be  car- 
ried out  under  conditions  of  general  European 
civilisation  and  of  proletarian  development  un- 
known either  in  the  England  of  the  seventeenth 
century  or  the  France  of  the  eighteenth.  The 
bourgeois  revolution,  then,  will  necessarily  be  the 
immediate  prelude  to  the  proletarian  revolution." 

Thus  we  see  that  the  proletarian  revolution  is 
to  be  grafted  on  to  a  victorious  bourgeois  revolu- 
tion. Marx's  mind,  delicately  ironical  and  even 
sarcastic  in  tone,  amused  itself  with  these  tricks 
of  thought.  The  idea  that  History  was  to  make 
sport  of  the  middle  class  by  snatching  the  spoils 
of  victory  still  warm  from  their  hands,  gave  him 
a  bitter  sort  of  joy.  But  it  was  a  scheme  of  revo- 
lution too  complicated  and  contradictory.  In  the 
first  place,  if  the  proletariat  is  not  strong  enough 
to  give  the  signal  for  the  Revolution  itself,  if  it  is 
obliged  to  depend  on  the  fortunate  chances  of  the 
bourgeois  revolution,  how  are  we  to  be  certain 
that  it  will  have  more  strength  to  oppose  to  the 
victorious  bourgeoisie  than  it  had  before  the 
movement  began  ?  Two  contingencies  will  arise. 
Either  the  bourgeoisie  will  be  defeated  in  its  at- 
tempt at  revolt  against  the  old  world  of  feudalism 
and  absolute  power,  and  the  proletariat  will  be 
overwhelmed  long  before  it  has  had  a  chance  to 
fight  for  its  own  hand;  or  else  the  bourgeoisie 
will  succeed,  it  will  abolish  the  arbitrary  power 


The  Question  of  Method      141 

of  kings,  do  away  with  feudal  property,  break 
the  shackles  of  the  guild  system,  and  will  then 
throw  itself  with  so  much  new  life  and  enthusiasm 
into  the  new  opportunities  it  has  conquered  for 
itself,  that  the  proletariat  will  be  utterly  incapable 
of  creating  another  and  opposing  movement. 
Even  if  it  acts  by  violence  and  surprise,  even  if  it 
tries  to  organise  a  "  dictatorship"  and  to  "  con- 
quer the  democracy  '  '  by  force,  its  real  power 
cannot  be  artificially  raised  above  the  level  where 
it  was  before  the  bourgeois  revolution  began. 

Miguel  was  clear-sighted  when  he  wrote  to 
Marx  in  his  famous  letter  of  1850,  foreseeing  a 
continuation  of  the  Revolution  :  "  The  labour 
party  may  succeed  against  the  upper  middle-class 
and  what  remains  of  the  feudal  element,  but  it 
will  be  attacked  in  the  flank  by  the  democracy. 
We  can  perhaps  give  an  anti-bourgeois  tone  to  the 
Revolution  for  a  little  while,  we  can  destroy  the 
essential  conditions  of  bourgeois  production;  but 
we  can't  possibly  put  down  the  small  trades- 
people and  shopkeeping  class,  the  petty  bour- 
geoisie. My  motto  is  to  secure  all  we  can  get. 
We  ought  to  prevent  the  lower  and  middle  class 
from  forming  any  organisation  for  as  long  a  time 
as  possible  after  the  first  victory,  and  especially 
to  oppose  ourselves  in  vSerried  ranks  to  the  scheme 
of  calling  a  constitutional  assembly.  Partial  ter- 
rorism, local  anarchy,  must  replace  for  us  what 
we  lack  in  bulk." 

But  a  lack  of  bulk  is  not  replaced  in  this  fashion. 


142  Studies  in  Socialism 

It  is  perfectly  certain  that  when  a  class  is  not 
historically  ready,  when  it  cannot  act  till  those 
whom  it  aspires  to  replace  have  given  the  signal, 
and  when  its  revolution,  borrowing  power  from 
the  movement  of  its  enemy,  cannot  be  called  any- 
thing but  a  parasite  revolution,  it  must  continue 
the  revolutionary  movements  permanently,  and 
keep  all  the  elements  of  society  in  continual  agi- 
tation if  it  is  to  attain  even  a  partial  success.  But 
this  policy  only  results  in  giving  time  and  oppor- 
tunit}''  to  the  reactionary  element  that  will  over- 
whelm proletariat  and  bourgeoisie  together. 
These  are  the  tactics  to  which  the  working  class 
is  condemned  while  it  is  still  in  the  period  of  in- 
sufiScient  preparation.  And  if  one  of  the  char- 
acteristics of  that  Socialism  which  may  be  called 
Utopian  is  to  have  planned  a  course  of  action 
without  depending  on  the  power  of  labour  itself 
and  labour  only,  the  Cominunist  Manifesto  of 
Marx  and  Engels  is  still  to  be  counted  as  a  pro- 
duction of  that  Utopian  period.  Robert  Owen 
and  Fourier  counted  on  the  good- will  of  the  upper 
classes,  while  Marx  and  Engels  awaited  the 
happy  fortune  of  a  middle-class  revolution,  to 
accomplish  their  end.  The  propositions  laid 
down  in  the  Manifesto  are  not  those  of  a  class 
sure  of  itself,  whose  hour  has  struck  at  last;  they 
are,  on  the  contrary,  the  revolutionary  expedients 
of  an  impatient  and  feeble  class,  that  wishes  to 
force  forward  by  strategy  the  progress  of  events. 
And  even  after  this  paradoxical  effort,  this 


The  Question  of  Method      143 

proletarian  distortion  of  the  borgeois  revolution, 
Marx  does  not  foresee  a  complete  victory  of  the 
proletariat  and  Communism;  he  looks  for  an  ex- 
traordinary combination  of  Capitalist  and  Com- 
munist ownership,  of  violence  to  property  and 
organisation  of  credit.  Here  is  a  singular  fact  : 
after  having  maintained  that  it  is  to  the  evolution 
of  industry  and  the  growth  of  the  industrial  pro- 
letariat that  the  revolutionary  power  owes  its  very 
existence,  the  Manifesto  only  plans  as  the  first 
move  of  the  victorious  Communist  Revolution, 
the  expropriation  of  the  income  from  land!  In 
this  Marx  is  less  advanced  than  Babeuf,  whose 
glory  it  is  to  have  brought  industrial,  as  well  as 
agricultural,  production  within  the  scope  of  Com- 
munist action.  His  position  is  almost  that  of  St. 
Just,  who  seems  to  have  foreseen  the  possibility 
of  the  nation's  absorbing  the  rent  of  farms.  "  We 
have  seen  above,"  says  Marx,  "  that  the  first 
measure  of  the  working  class  will  be  to  raise  the 
proletariat  to  the  position  of  the  ruling  class,  to 
capture  the  democratic  régime. 

'  '  The  proletariat  will  make  use  of  its  political 
supremacy  to  wrest  by  degrees  all  capital  from  the 
bourgeoisie,  to  centralise  all  the  means  of  produc- 
tion in  the  hands  of  the  State,  viz.,  the  proletariat 
organised  into  a  ruling  class,  and  to  increase  as 
quickly  as  possible  the  total  of  productive  forces 
of  which  use  can  be  made. 

"It  is  evident  that  this  policy  implies  at  the 
outset  despotic  inroads  on  the  rights  of  private 


144  Studies  in  Socialism 

property  and  on  the  conditions  of  bourgeois  pro- 
duction. Measures  must  be  taken  which  will 
at  first  appear  economically  insuflScient  and  can- 
not be  regarded  as  permanent,  but  which,  once 
the  movement  is  under  way,  will  lead  to  new 
measures,  and  be  indispensable  as  a  means  of 
revolutionising  the  whole  system  of  production. 
These  measures,  obviously,  will  be  different  in  the 
different  countries.  Nevertheless  the  following 
will  be  generally  applicable,  at  least  in  the  most 
advanced  countries:  (i)  Abolition  of  property  in 
land  ;  application  of  all  rents  of  land  to  public 
purposes.  (2)  A  heavy  progressive  or  graduated 
income  tax,  (3)  Abolition  of  all  right  of  inherit- 
ance. (4)  Confiscation  of  the  goods  of  all  rebels 
and  those  who  have  left  the  country,  (5)  Cen- 
tralisation of  credit  in  the  hands  of  the  State  by 
means  of  a  National  Bank  founded  on  State 
capital  and  with  an  exclusive  monopoly.  (6) 
Centralisation  of  the  means  of  communication  and 
transport  in  the  hands  of  the  State.  (7)  Exten- 
sion of  factories  and  means  of  production  owned 
by  the  State;  the  bringing  into  cultivation  of 
fertile  lands  generally,  in  accordance  with  a  com- 
mon plan.  (8)  Obligatory  labour  for  all;  or- 
ganisation of  industrial  armies,  especially  for 
agricultural  purposes.  (9)  Combination  of  agri- 
culture with  manufacturing  industries,  prepara- 
tion of  all  measures  looking  toward  the  progressive 
disappearance  of  the  distinction  between  town 
and  country.     (10)  Free  public  education  of  all 


The  Question  of  Method      145 

children  ;  abolition  of  the  present  system  of 
child  labour  in  factories.  Combination  of  edu- 
cation with  industrial  production,  etc." 

An  extraordinary  programme,  in  which  are 
united  the  agrarian  Communism  of  the  eighteenth 
century  and  some  of  the  elements  of  what  we 
should  call  to-day  the  programme  of  St.  Mandé. 
In  the  industrial  world,  Marx  and  Engels  content 
themselves  at  first  with  the  nationalisation  of  the 
railroads;  they  do  not  even  suggest  the  national- 
isation of  the  mines,  which  is  accepted  to-day  even 
by  the  Radical- Socialist  party.  But  the  phenom- 
enon that  especially  strikes  me  is  not  the  chaos 
of  the  programme,  with  its  mixture  of  agricultural 
Communism  and  industrial  Capitalism.  It  is  not 
the  contradiction  between  the  article  that  takes 
away  the  right  of  inheritance  and  thus  deprives 
the  new  generations  of  personal  property  in  in- 
dustrial capital,  and  all  the  articles  that  allow 
private  property  to  exist.  History  shows  that 
different  and  even  contradictory  forms  have  often 
co-existed.  For  example,  production  according 
to  the  old  guild  system  and  capitalistic  production 
functioned  side  by  side  for  a  long  time;  all  the 
seventeenth  and  all  the  eighteenth  centuries  are 
made  up  of  a  mixture  of  the  two,  and  free  farm 
labour  and  serfdom  also  co-existed  for  a  long 
time.  And  I  am  convinced  that  in  the  revolu- 
tionary evolution  which  is  to  lead  us  to  Com- 
munism, we  shall  have  for  a  long  time  the 
juxtaposition  of  collectivist  property,  and  iudi- 


146  Studies  in  Socialism 

vidualist  property,  of  Communism  and  Capitalism. 
This  is  the  fundamental  law  of  great  transforma- 
tions. Marx  and  Engels  had  a  perfect  right  to 
say  in  1872  that  they  set  no  great  store  by  their 
1847  programme,  and  this  confession  was  by  no 
means  a  recantation.  "  This  passage  now  re- 
quires modifications  in  several  directions.  The 
immense  industrial  progress  of  the  last  twenty- 
five  years,  the  parallel  advance  of  the  working 
class  organised  as  a  party,  have  superannuated 
more  than  one  passage  of  this  programme."  At 
the  most  one  must  be  astonished  that  they  did 
not  in  1847  assign  a  more  important  rôle  to  in- 
dustrial Communism. 

But  the  really  amazing  thing  is  that  they  should 
have  thought  the  proletariat  strong  enough  to 
confiscate  for  its  own  advantage  the  bourgeois 
revolution,  and  to  "  capture  the  democracy  "  by 
a  sudden  stroke,  and  at  the  same  time  have  sup- 
posed it  incapable  of  fully  establishing  industrial 
Communism,  even  in  the  first  flush  of  victory 
and  in  the  most  advanced  countries.  The  most 
striking  thing  in  the  Manifesto  is  not  the  chaos 
of  the  programme,  but  the  chaos  of  the  method. 
By  a  stroke  of  physical  force  the  proletariat  will 
have  established  itself  in  power  in  the  beginning; 
by  a  stroke  of  force  it  will  have  wrenched  power 
from  the  revolutionary  bourgeoisie.  It  will  "cap- 
ture the  democracy  ";  the  fact  is,  in  other  words, 
that  it  will  suspend  it,  .since  it  substitutes  the  dic- 
tatorial will  of  a  single  class  for  the  freely  con- 


The  Question  of  Method      h? 

suited  will  of  the  majority  of  the  citizens.  And 
by  force  again,  by  the  power  of  a  dictator,  it  will 
commit  its  first  "despotic  infractions"  of  the 
rights  of  property  that  the  Manifesto  foresees. 
.  .  ,  But  what  does  all  this  amount  to  ?  And 
supposing  that  the  democracy  is  not  ready  for  the 
Communist  movement,  will  it  not  then  take 
measures  to  annul  the  first  dictatorial  acts  of  the 
proletariat  instead  of  carrying  them  out  and  ex- 
tending their  scope  ?  But  if,  on  the  contrary,  the 
democracy  is  prepared,  if  the  proletariat  can,  by 
legal  measures  alone,  induce  it  to  develop  the 
first  revolutionary  institutions  in  a  communistic 
direction,  we  have  in  the  legal  conquest  of  the 
democracy  the  sovereign  method  of  revolution. 
Every  other  method,  I  repeat,  is  nothing  but  the 
momentary  expedient,  possibly  necessary  for  a 
moment,  of  a  weak  and  ill-prepared  class.  And 
those  modern  Socialists  who  are  still  talking 
about  "  the  impersonal  dictatorship  of  the  prole- 
tariat," or  who  expect  a  sudden  seizure  of  power 
and  the  violation  of  democratic  methods,  are  re- 
verting to  the  time  when  the  proletariat  was  still 
a  feeble  element,  when  it  was  reduced  to  adopt 
artificial  means  of  obtaining  a  victory. 

The  tactics  of  the  Manifesto  consist  in  altering 
for  the  benefit  of  the  proletariat  the  course  of 
those  movements  that  it  lacked  the  strength  to 
originate.  These  are  the  tactics  of  a  bold  force, 
increasing  in  strength  but  still  subordinate,  and 
as  a  matter  of  fact  they  have  been  instinctively 


148         Studies  in  Socialism 

employed  by  the  working  class  in  all  the  crises  of 
democratic  and  bourgeois  society.  Marx  had 
taken  up  the  idea  of  the  French  Revolution  and 
Babeuf.  After  1830  the  labour  agitations  of  Paris 
and  layons  prolonged  the  middle-class  revolution 
by  a  sort  of  confused  proletarian  affirmation.  In 
1848  the  proletariat  of  Paris,  Berlin,  and  Vienna 
tried,  for  a  few  audacious  days,  to  divert  the 
Revolution  in  the  direction  of  Socialism.  The 
famous  saying  of  Blanqui,  "  We  do  not  create  a 
movement,  we  divert  it,"  is  the  very  expression 
of  this  policy.  It  is  the  working  formula  of 
Marx's  Communist  Manifesto,  the  watchword  of 
a  class  that  knows  itself  to  be  still  in  the  minority, 
but  feels  that  it  is  called  to  play  a  great  part  in 
the  future.  When,  in  1870,  the  4th  of  September 
was  followed  by  the  31st  of  October,'  we  have 
another  example  of  the  method  of  Marx  and 
Blanqui.  And  the  Commune  itself,  where  the 
Socialist  proletariat  took  such  an  increasingly 
active  part  that  it  tended  to  overshadow  the  lower 
middle-class  democracy,  was  again  an  application 
of  the  tactics  of  the  Manifesto— to  graft  the  prole- 
tarian revolution  on  to  the  democratic  and  bour- 
geois revolution. 


'  The  Republic  of  Gambetta  was  proclaimed  on  the  4th 
of  September,  the  day  after  the  news  of  the  Emperor's 
defeat  at  Sedan  reached  Paris.  On  the  31st  of  October 
an  attempt  at  proletarian  revolution  was  made,  but  the 
insurrectionists  had  control  of  the  Hôtel  de  Ville  for  a 
few  hours  only. 


The  Question  of  Method      149 

Thus,  in  a  hundred  and  twenty  j-ears,  the 
method  of  working-class  revolution  which  Babeuf 
was  the  first  to  apply,  which  was  given  a  formula 
by  Marx  and  Blanqui,  and  which  consisted  in  in- 
troducing the  ideas  of  proletarian  Communism 
under  the  cover  of  bourgeois  revolutions,  has 
been  tried  or  proposed  many  times  and  under 
many  forms.  By  this  method  the  working  class 
at  several  great  historical  crises  has  become  con- 
scious of  its  power  and  its  destiny.  By  it,  the 
proletariat  has  had  an  opportunity  to  test  itself  in 
a  position  of  partial  power.  By  it,  the  problem 
of  property  and  Communism  has  been  kept  imin- 
terruptedly  before  the  public  as  a  question  of  the 
day  in  practical  European  politics,  according  to 
the  advice  of  the  Manifesto:  "  In  all  these  move- 
ments, the  question  that  the  Communists  bring  to 
the  front  as  the  essential  point  is  that  of  prop- 
erty, even  if  the  discussion  of  this  question  has 
not  been  fully  developed  at  the  time." 

By  following  this  policy,  finally,  the  proletariat 
has  taken  an  active  part  in  affairs  long  before  it 
had  power  enough  to  control  them.  But  it  was 
chimerical  to  hope  that  a  proletarian  Communism 
could  be  grafted  on  to  the  bourgeois  revolution. 
It  was  chimerical  to  think  that  the  revolutionary 
agitation  of  the  bourgeoisie  would  give  the  prole- 
tariat the  opportunity  of  making  a  permanently 
successful  counter-stroke.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
these  tactics  have  never  had  the  desired  issue. 
Sometimes    the    revolutionary    bourgeoisie    has 


150         Studies  in  Socialism 

failed,  dragging  the  proletariat  down  with  it. 
Sometimes  the  successful  revolutionary  bour- 
geoisie has  had  the  strength  to  restrain  and  over- 
power the  proletarian  movement.  And  besides, 
even  supposing  that  a  proletarian  movement  had 
been  suddenly  imposed  by  surprise  on  agitations 
of  another  nature  and  another  origin,  what  would 
have  been  the  final  result?  The  strictly  prole- 
tarian movement  would  have  quickly  degenerated 
by  a  series  of  compromises  into  a  movement 
purely  democratic  in  character.  The  very  utmost 
outcome  of  a  victorious  Commune  would  have 
been  a  radical  Republic. 

To-day  the  predetermined  form  in  which  Marx, 
Engels,  and  Blanqui  conceived  of  the  proletarian 
revolution  has  been  eliminated  by  history.  In 
the  first  place,  the  proletariat  in  its  increased 
strength  has  ceased  to  count  on  the  favourable 
chance  of  a  bourgeois  revolution.  By  its  own 
strength  and  in  the  name  of  its  own  ideas,  it 
wishes  to  influence  the  democracy.  It  is  not  ly- 
ing in  wait  for  a  bourgeois  revolution  in  order  to 
throw  the  bourgeoisie  down  from  its  revolution  as 
one  might  throw  a  rider  down  so  as  to  get  posses- 
sion of  his  horse.  It  has  its  own  organisation  and 
its  own  power.  It  has  a  growing  economic  power, 
through  its  trades-unions  and  co-operative  socie- 
ties. It  has  an  indefinitely  elastic  legal  power 
through  universal  suffrage  and  democratic  insti- 
tutions. It  is  not  reduced  to  being  an  adventur- 
ous and  violent  parasite  on  bourgeois  revolutions. 


The  Question  of  Method      151 

It  is  methodically  preparing,  or  better,  it  is 
methodically  beginning  its  own  revolution,  by 
the  gradual  and  legal  conquest  ot  the  power  of 
production  and  of  the  power  of  the  State. 

And  indeed,  if  it  were  to  wait  for  the  opportu- 
nity of  a  middle-class  revolution  in  order  to  strike 
its  coup  de  force  and  institute  a  class  dictatorship, 
it  would  wait  in  vain.  The  revolutionary  period 
of  the  bourgeoisie  is  over.  It  is  possible  that  in 
order  to  safeguard  its  economic  interests  and 
under  the  pressure  of  the  working  class,  the 
middle  class  in  Italy,  Germany,  and  Belgium 
may  be  induced  to  extend  the  constitutional 
rights  of  the  people,  to  claim  full  universal  suf- 
frage, real  parliamentary  government,  and  fne 
responsibility  of  ministers  to  Parliament.  It  is 
possible  that  the  combined  action  of  the  demo- 
cratic middle  class  and  the  working  class  will 
everywhere  curtail  the  royal  prerogative  or  the 
imperial  autocracy  to  the  point  where  monarchy 
has  only  a  nominal  existence.  It  is  certain  that 
the  struggle  for  a  complete  democracy  is  not  over 
in  Europe,  but  in  this  struggle  the  bourgeoisie 
will  have  an  insignificant  part  to  play,  such  a  part, 
for  example,  as  it  is  now  playing  in  Belgium. 

Moreover,  in  all  the  constitutions  of  central  and 
western  Europe,  there  are  already  enough  demo- 
cratic elements  for  the  transition  to  real  democracy 
to  be  made  without  a  revolutionary  crisis.  So 
that  the  proletarian  revolution  cannot,  as  Marx 
and  Blanqui  thought,  take  shelter  behind  hour- 


152  Studies  in  Socialism 

geois  revolutions;  it  can  no  longer  seize  and  twist 
to  its  advantage  the  revolutionary  agitations  of 
the  middle  class,  because  these  agitations  are  over 
and  done  with.  On  open  ground,  on  the  large 
field  of  democratic  legality  and  universal  suffrage, 
the  Socialist  proletariat  is  now  preparing,  en- 
larging, and  organising  its  revolution.  To  this 
methodical,  direct,  and  legal  revolutionary  action 
Bngels  at  the  end  of  his  life  summoned  the  Euro- 
pean proletariat  in  famous  words  which,  in  fact, 
relegated  the  Commwiist  Manifesto  to  the  past. 
Henceforward,  middle-class  revolutionary  action 
being  over,  all  violent  means  employed  by  the 
proletariat  would  result  only  in  uniting  all  non- 
proletarian  forces  in  an  opposition  coalition.  And 
that  is  why  I  have  always  interpreted  a  general 
strike  not  as  a  means  of  violent  action,  but  as  one 
of  the  most  gigantic  means  of  legal  pressure  that 
the  educated  and  organised  proletariat  can  bring 
to  bear  for  great  and  definite  ends. 

But  if  the  historical  hypothesis  on  which  the 
revolutionary  conception  of  the  Comnnaiisi  Mani- 
festo is  based  is  as  a  matter  of  fact  vSuperannuated, 
if  the  proletariat  can  no  longer  count  on  the  revo- 
lutionary movements  of  the  bourgeoisie  as  a  means 
of  displaying  its  own  revolutionary'  power,  if  it 
can  no  longer  erect  its  class  dictatorship  after  a 
period  of  chaotic  and  violent  democracy,  can  it  at 
least  expect  its  sudden  installation  in  power  as 
the  result  of  an  economic  crash,  a  cataclysm  of  the 
capitalistic  system,  that  has  come  at  last  face  to 


The  Question  of  Method      153 

face  with  the  impossibility  of  living,  and  has  sus- 
pended payment?  That  again  was  a  revolution- 
ary perspective  opened  by  Marx.  To  establish 
the  class  dictatorship  of  the  proletariat,  he  de- 
pended both  on  the  revolutionary  political  as- 
cendency of  the  bourgeoisie  and  on  its  economic 
downfall.  Capitalism  was  one  day  to  succumb 
of  its  own  accord,  under  the  increasingly  intense 
and  frequent  action  of  the  crises  for  which  it  was 
responsible,  and  the  exhaustion  of  misery  to 
which  it  would  have  reduced  the  exploited.  It 
cannot  be  seriously  doubted  that  this  was  the 
thought  of  Marx  and  Engels  in  the  Coniinwiist 
Manifesto  : 

"  Hitherto,  every  form  of  society  has  been 
based,  as  we  have  already  seen,  on  the  antagonism 
of  oppressed  and  oppressing  classes.  But  that  a 
class  may  be  oppressed,  certain  conditions  must 
be  assured  under  which  it  can  at  least  continue  to 
drag  on  its  slavish  existence.  Under  the  feudal 
yoke,  the  serf,  in  spite  of  his  serfdom,  did  manage 
to  raise  himself  to  membership  in  the  commune 
(or  village  organisation)  and  the  member  of  the 
middle  class  managed  to  develop  into  a  bourgeois. 
The  modern  labourer,  instead  of  bettering  himself 
with  the  progress  of  industry,  sinks  deeper  and 
deeper  below  the  conditions  of  existence  of  his 
own  class.  The  workman  becomes  a  pauper,  and 
pauperism  increases  even  more  rapidly  than  either 
population  or  wealth.  It  is  therefore  perfectly 
clear  that  the  bourgeoisie  is  unfit  to  be  any  longer 


154  Studies  in  Socialism 

the  ruling  class  in  society  and  to  impose  its  class 
conditions  on  society  as  a  ruling  law.  It  has  be- 
come unfit  to  govern  because  it  can  no  longer 
assure  to  its  slaves  the  subsistence  which  allows 
them  to  continue  their  slave-existence.  It  cannot 
help  letting  them  sink  to  the  condition  where  it 
has  to  feed  them,  instead  of  being  fed  by  them. 
Society  can  no  longer  live  under  the  rule  of  this 
bourgeoisie;  that  is,  the  existence  of  this  bour- 
geoisie is  no  longer  compatible  with  the  life  of 
society." 

When  matters  have  got  to  this  pass,  when 
boui^eois  and  capitalistic  exploitation  have  ex- 
ceeded, if  one  may  use  the  expression,  the  limit 
of  the  human  tolerance  of  the  exploited  classes, 
an  inevitable  revolt,  an  irresistible  rising  of  the 
people  breaks  out,  and  the  civil  war  that  is  latent 
between  the  classes  is  finally  put  an  end  to  by  the 
"  violent  overthrow  of  the  bourgeoisie." 

This  is  a  true  statement  of  the  thought  of  Marx 
and  Engels  at  that  date.  I  am  aware  that  many 
writers  and  speakers  try  to  throw  a  veil  over  the 
brutality  of  these  statements.  I  am  aware  that 
subtle  Marxist  interpreters  say  that  Marx  and 
Bngels  only  meant  to  speak  about  a  relative 
pauperisation.  In  the  same  way  when  theo- 
logians want  to  harmonise  texts  in  the  Bible  with 
proved  scientific  truth,  they  say  that  the  word 
"  day"  in  Genesis  means  a  geological  period  of 
several  million  years.  I  do  not  contradict  them. 
Those  are  exegetical  elegances  and  charities  that 


The  Question  of  Method      155 

make  it  possible  to  pass  without  pain  from  a 
dogma  professed  for  many  years  to  a  better  known 
truth.  And  since  the  'revolutionary"  spirits 
have  need  of  these  manipulations,  who  would 
dream  of  thwarting  them  ?  Nevertheless  if  Marx 
had  only  meant  to  talk  of  a  relative  pauperisation, 
how  would  he  have  been  able  to  conclude  that 
capitalism  would  force  its  slaves  down  below  the 
minimum  living  wage,  and  thus,  by  a  series  of 
irresistible  reflexes,  make  it  inevitable  that  the 
working  class  should  bring  on  the  destruction  of 
the  bourgeoisie  ? 

It  has  been  said,  too,  that  Marx  and  Engels 
only  wished  to  define  the  abstract  tendency  of 
capitalism  and  to  give  a  picture  of  what  bourgeois 
society  would  become  by  its  own  law  if  the  or- 
ganisation of  labour  did  not  by  an  inverse  effort 
counteract  the  tendency  of  oppression  and  de- 
pression. And  how,  indeed,  could  Marx,  who 
made  the  proletariat  the  essence  and  vital  em- 
bodiment of  Socialism,  have  failed  to  recognise 
and  give  value  to  proletarian  action  ?  But  it 
seems  as  if,  in  the  thought  of  Marx,  this  action, 
although  in  fact  ensuring  certain  partial  economic 
advantages  to  the  proletariat,  was  chiefly  im- 
portant as  a  means  of  increasing  its  class  con- 
sciousness by  developing  its  sense  of  injury  and 
of  its  own  strength:  "  But  with  the  development 
of  industry  the  proletariat  not  only  increases  in 
number;  it  becomes  concentrated  in  greater 
masses,    its  strength    grows,    and   it  feels    that 


156         Studies  in  Socialism 

strength  more.  The  diÊferent  interests  and  vary- 
ing conditions  of  life  of  the  different  grades  of 
labour,  within  the  ranks  of  the  proletariat  itself, 
are  more  and  more  equalised,  in  proportion  as 
machinery  obliterates  all  distinctions  of  labour, 
and  reduces  wages  nearly  everywhere  to  the  same 
low  level.  The  growing  competition  among  the 
bourgeois,  and  the  resulting  commercial  crises, 
make  the  wages  of  the  workers  constantly  more 
fluctuating.  The  unceasing  improvement  of 
machinery,  ever  more  rapidly  developing,  makes 
their  livelihood  more  and  more  precarious;  the 
collisions  between  individual  workmen  and  in- 
dividual bourgeois  take  on  more  and  more  the 
character  of  collisions  between  two  classes. 
Thereupon  the  workers  begin  to  form  combina- 
tions (trades-unions)  against  the  bourgeois;  they 
club  together  in  order  to  keep  up  the  rate  of 
wages;  they  found  permanent  associations  in 
order  to  make  provisions  beforehand  for  these 
occasional  revolts.  Here  and  there  the  contest 
breaks  out  into  riots. 

'  'Now  and  then  the  workers  are  victorious,  but  only 
for  a  time.  The  real  fruit  of  their  battles  lies,  7iot 
in  the  immediate  result,  but  in  the  ever- expanding 
union  of  the  workers.  This  union  is  helped  on 
by  the  improved  means  of  communication  that 
are  created  by  modern  industry  and  place  the 
workers  of  different  localities  in  contact  with  one 
another.  It  was  just  this  contact  that  was  needed 
to  centralise  the  numerous  local  struggles,  all  of 


The  Question  of  Method      157 

the  same  character,  into  one  national  struggle 
between  classes.  But  every  class  struggle  is  a 
political  struggle.  And  that  union,  for  the  attain- 
ment of  which  the  burghers  of  the  Middle  Ages 
with  their  miserable  highwaj^s  required  centuries, 
the  modern  proletarians,  thanks  to  railways, 
achieve  in  a  few  years. 

"  This  organisation  of  the  proletarians  into  a 
class,  and  consequently  into  a  political  party,  is 
continually  being  upset  again  by  the  competition 
between  the  workers  themselves.  But  it  always 
rises  up  again,  stronger,  firmer,  and  mightier.  It 
compels  legislative  recognition  of  particular  inter- 
ests of  the  workers,  by  taking  advantage  of  the 
internal  dissensions  in  the  bourgeoisie.  Thus  the 
ten  hours'  bill  in  England  was  carried."  ' 

If  I  have  reproduced  this  pleasant  picture  of 
the  modern  labour-movement,  it  is  not  with  the 
object  of  discussing  it  in  detail.<  It  w^ould  be 
necessary  to  make  many  reservations  on  several 
points,  especially  that  of  the  levelling  of  salaries. 
But  I  wished  the  reader  to  put  to  himself  to  some 
purpose  the  question  I  ask  myself  now:  "  How 
far  did  Marx  admit  that  the  economic  and  politi- 
cal organisation  of  the  proletarians  would  check 
the  tendency  to  pauperisation  that  is,  according 


'  I  have  used  the  English  translation  of  the  Communist 
Manifesto  authorised  by  Engels  and  published  as  a  tract 
by  the  Social  Democratic  Federation.  In  a  few  minor 
instances  I  have  altered  the  phraseology  when  clearness 
seemed  to  demand  it.— Transi^aTOR. 


158         Studies  in  Socialism 

to  him,  the  very  law  of  capitalism  ?"  I  think  the 
answer  may  fairly  be,  "  In  a  very  feeble  measure." 
Undoubtedly  the  workmen  grouped  as  a  class  and 
a  party  are  able  to  gain  certain  partial  advantages, 
thanks  especially  to  the  divisions  in  the  owning 
class;  but  it  appears  that  their  union  for  the  fight 
is  the  only  important  gain  that  they  obtain  from 
the  fight  itself.  A  general  revolt  is  then  the  ultim- 
ate aim  that  is  furthered  by  the  gain  in  solidarity 
and  the  power  of  protest  of  the  workmen.  Their 
chances  of  conducting  a  revolutionary  movement 
efficiently  and  of  hastening  the  downfall  of  the 
bourgeoisie  are  thereby  increased.  But  in  fact, 
in  the  main  conditions  of  their  actual  life,  they 
suffer  under  the  law  of  proletarian  pauperisation, 
opposing  to  it  a  too  feeble  counterweight.  Un- 
doubtedly this  very  contradiction  between  the  in- 
creasing misery  endured  by  the  proletariat,  and 
the  increasing  power  of  claiming  its  rights  and  of 
decisive  action  that  organisation  was  bringing 
about,  seemed  to  Marx  the  special  motive  power 
of  the  approaching  insurrection,  the  immediate 
force  back  of  revolution.  The  concrete  ameliora- 
tions obtained  by  the  labour  movement  compen- 
sate imperfectly  for  the  concrete  depreciation  of 
the  labourer's  standard  of  life  under  the  law  of 
capitalist  production.  In  the  conflict  of  tend- 
encies acting  upon  the  proletariat,  the  depress- 
ing tendency  has  the  upper  hand  at  present.  It 
is  this  more  than  any  other  that  controls  the  real 
situation  of  the  working  class. 


The  Question  of  Method      159 

And,  since  we  are  talking  of  tendencies,  we 
may  note  that  all  the  thought  of  Marx  and  Engels 
tended  in  this  direction,  I  might  almost  say  that 
Marx  needed  for  his  dialectic  conception  of  mod- 
ern history  a  proletariat  infinitely  impoverished 
and  denuded.  The  proletariat,  to  fulfil  its  role 
of  "  the  human  factor  "  in  the  Hegelian  dialectic 
of  Marx,  to  represent  truly  the  idea  of  essential 
humanity,  ought  to  be  so  utterly  despoiled  of  all 
social  rights  that  the  quality  of  humanity,  in- 
finitely distressed  and  wronged,  alone  persisted. 
How  can  one  pretend  to  understand  Marx  without 
penetrating  to  the  dialectic  origin,  the  fundamen- 
tal basis  of  this  thought  ?  His  '  '  Critique  of  the 
Hegelian  Philosophy  of  Rights,"  which  appeared 
in  1844  in  the  Frarico- German  Annals,  is  a  con- 
clusive document  in  this  connection.  "  Where," 
he  asks,  "does  the  practical  possibility  of  German 
emancipation  lie?  The  answer  is:  It  lies  in  the 
formation  of  a  class  bound  by  Radical  chains;  of 
a  class  of  bourgeois  society  that  shall  not  be  a 
class  of  bourgeois  society;  of  a  State  that  shall  be 
the  dissolution  of  all  States;  of  a  sphere  that  shall 
have  a  character  of  universality  by  the  univers- 
ality of  its  suffering,  and  that  lays  claim  to  no 
one  especial  right  because  it  is  not  one  special  in- 
justice but  injustice  as  a  whole  that  is  being 
wreaked  upon  it;  that  can  appeal  to  no  historic 
title  to  consideration,  but  only  to  the  title  of  hu- 
manity; that  is  not  in  special  opposition  to  this 
or  that  result,  but  in  general  opposition  to  all  th 


i6o         Studies  in  Socialism 

principles  of  the  German  State;  it  consists  finally 
in  the  formation  of  a  sphere  that  can  emancipate 
itself  only  by  emancipating  at  the  same  time  all 
the  other  spheres  of  society;  a  sphere  that  em- 
bodies the  total  degradation  of  Man  and  that  can, 
in  consequence,  realise  itself  again  only  by  the 
complete  restoration  of  Man." 

I  am  of  course  aware  that  Marx  is  speaking 
here  of  Germany  and  of  the  special  conditions  of 
her  enfranchisement.  I  know  that  he  recognised 
in  the  social  classes  in  France  a  higher  historic 
idealism;  that  according  to  him  they  have  the 
habit  of  regarding  themselves  as  the  guardians  of 
the  general  good,  so  that  for  entire  emancipation 
to  be  efifected  in  France,  it  would  be  enough  that 
this  idealist  action  should  pass  from  the  bour- 
geoisie, whose  humanitarian  mission  is  limited 
and  counteracted  by  the  cares  of  property,  to  the 
French  proletariat,  in  whom  the  humanitarian 
mission  can  develop  to  its  full  and  universal  sig- 
nificance without  any  obstacle. 

Yes,  he  is  dealing  with  Germany  and  the  Ger- 
man proletariat.  But  who  does  not  realise  that, 
in  spite  of  ethnic  and  historical  differences,  the 
German  proletariat  is,  in  Marx's  mind,  the  repre- 
sentative and,  because  of  the  completeness  of  its 
destitution,  the  typical  proletariat  ? 

It  is  by  a  Hegelian  transposition  of  Christianity 
that  Marx  pictures  the  movement  of  modern 
emancipation.  Just  as  the  Christian  God  hum- 
bled himself  to  the  lowest  depth  of  suffering  hu- 


The  Question  of  Method      i6i 

manity  in  order  to  redeem  humanity  as  a  whole; 
just  as  the  Saviour,  to  save  mankind,  had  to 
lower  himself  to  a  degree  of  destitution  bordering 
on  animality,  a  situation  beneath  which  no  man 
could  fall;  just  as  this  infinite  abasement  of  God 
was  the  condition  of  the  infinite  elevation  of 
man,  so,  in  the  dialectic  of  Marx,  the  proletariat, 
the  modern  Saviour,  had  to  be  stripped  of  all 
guaranties,  deprived  of  every  right,  degraded  to 
the  depth  of  social  and  historic  annihilation,  in 
order  that  by  raising  itself  it  might  raise  all  hu- 
manity. And  just  as  the  Man-God,  to  continue 
his  mission,  had  to  remain  poor,  suffering,  and 
humiliated  until  the  triumphal  day  of  the  resur- 
rection— that  single  victory  over  death  which  has 
freed  all  humanity  from  the  bonds  of  death  for 
ever, — so  the  proletariat  is  only  able  to  continue 
its  mission  in  the  logical  scheme  by  bearing,  until 
the  final  day  of  revolt — the  revolutionary  resur- 
rection of  humanity, — a  cross  whose  weight  is  ever 
increasing,  the  essential  capitalistic  law  of  oppres- 
sion and  depression.  Hence  comes  the  evident 
difficulty  that  Marx  experiences  in  accepting  the 
idea  of  a  partial  raising  of  the  proletariat.  Hence 
a  sort  of  joy  he  feels  mixed  with  an  element  of 
dialectic  mysticism,  in  summing  up  the  crushing 
forces  that  weigh  down  the  proletarians.' 

Marx  was  mistaken.     It  was  not  from  absolute 


'  It  may  be  of  interest  to  quote  here  Bebel's  remarks 
on  this  subject  at  the  Liibeck  Congress  in  1901.    He  is 


102  Studies  in  Socialism 

destitution  that  absolute  liberation  could  come. 
Poor  as  the  German  proletariat  was,  it  was  not 
supremely  poor.  In  the  first  place,  the  modern 
workman  embodies  henceforward  all  that  part  of 
humanity  conquered  by  the  abolition  of  primitive 


answering  the  attack  of  Dr.  David,  whose  arguments  are 
practically  those  of  Jaurès. 

"The  Contmutiist  Manifesto  has  been  appealed  to.  I 
affirm  that  already  in  1872,  Engels,  in  concert  with  Karl 
Marx,  declared  that  they  wished  to  republish  it  only  as  a 
historical  document.  Whoever  has  studied  the  works  of 
Marx  and  Engels  in  detail  can  have  no  doubt  that  they 
never  set  up  the  Theory  of  Increasing  Misery  in  the 
sense  explained  by  David.  If  anything  is  characteristic, 
and  refutes  large  passages  in  Bernstein's  Presuppositions 
of  Socialism,  it  is  the  passage  from  Capital,  prefixed  as  a 
motto  to  Bernstein's  book,  in  which  Karl  Marx  describes 
the  Ten  Hours'  Bill  as  the  victory  of  a  principle.  Marx 
took  the  view  that  by  organisation  the  working  class  can 
counteract  the  depressing  tendencies  of  capital,  and  if  by 
the  strength  of  their  organisation  they  succeeded  in  incit- 
ing the  State  to  take  such  steps,  then  it  was  not  merely  a 
great  moral  advance,  but  the  victory  of  a  new  principle. 
Even  a  man  like  Lassalle,  who  took  so  decidedly  the 
standpoint  of  the  Brazen  Law  of  Wages, — even  he  gives 
no  occasion  for  his  being  invoked  as  a  witness  on  behalf 
of  a  false  conception  of  the  Theory  of  Increasing  Misery. 
In  his  Open  Letter  in  Reply  he  says  :  '  People  tell  you 
workers  you  are  to-day  in  quite  a  difierent  position  from 
that  of  three  or  four  hundred  years  ago.  No  doubt  you 
are  better  off  than  the  Botokudiens  or  than  cannibal 
savages.'  'Every  human  satisfaction,'  he  says  further 
on,  *  depends  always  on  the  relation  of  the  means  of 
satisfaction  to  what  the  custom  of  the  period  demands 


The  Question  of  Method      163 

savagery  and  barbarism,  by  the  abolition  of  slav- 
ery and  serfdom.  Then,  however  feeble  at  that 
moment  were  the  claims  of  the  German  proletariat 
to  a  place  of  historic  importance,  they  were  not 
entirely  lacking.  The  history  of  this  proletariat 
since  the  French  Revolution  had  not  been  an  utter 
blank.  And  especially  by  its  sympathy  for  the 
emancipatory  action  of  the  French  proletariat,  the 
workmen  of  the  Parisian  section  on  the  14th  of 
July,  the  5th  and  6th  of  October,  and  the  loth  of 
August,'  it  shared  in  the  title  to  historical  con- 
sideration won  by  the  French  proletariat;  a  title 
that  had  become  universal  in  character,  just  as 
the  Declaration  of  the  Rights  of  Man  was  a  uni- 
versal symbol  and  as  the  fall  of  the  Bastille  was  a 
universal  deliverance.  At  the  very  moment  when 
Marx  was  writing  to  the  German  proletariat  words 


as  bare  necessities  for  existence,  or,  which  is  the  same 
thing,  upon  the  excess  of  the  means  of  satisfaction 
over  the  lowest  limit  of  what  the  custom  of  the  period 
demands  as  bare  necessaries  for  existence.'  'If  you 
then  compare,'  he  suggests  further,  'what  the  rich  class 
has  to-day  with  what  the  working  class  has  to-day,  the 
gap  between  the  working  class  and  the  rich  class  to-day 
is  evidently  greater  than  ever  before.'  That  is  the  pith 
of  the  Theory  of  Increasing  Misery." — Modern  Social- 
ism, edited  by  R.  C.  K.  Ensor. 

'The  14th  of  July,  1789,  is  the  date  of  the  fall  of  the 
Bastille;  on  the  5th  and  6th  of  October,  1789,  the  people 
of  Paris,  led  by  the  hungry  women,  forced  the  King  to 
return  from  Versailles  ;  on  the  10th  of  August,  1792,  the 
Tuileries  were  taken. 


1 64         Studies  in  Socialism 

of  mystic  abasement  and  mystic  resurrection,  the 
German  proletarians,  and  Marx  himself  among 
them,  were  turning  their  eyes  towards  France, 
the  great  country  where  the  honourable  position 
of  the  proletariat  in  history  was  first  realised. 
But  is  there  anything  strange  in  the  fact  that 
Marx,  with  his  fundamental  logical  conception  of 
history,  should  have  given  precedence  to  the  tend- 
ency toward  depression  in  capitalistic  evolution  ? 
Is  it  astonishing  that  he  should  have  written 
again  in  his  Capital  that  "  oppression,  slavery, 
exploitation,  and  misery  are  increasing,"  and  yet 
also  have  used  the  phrase,  "  the  resistance  of  the 
labouring  classes,  continually  growing  in  num- 
bers and  discipline,  united  and  organised  by  the 
very  mechanism  of  capitalistic  production,"  here 
again  balancing  a  force  of  depression  that  acts 
immediately  and  a  force  of  resistance  to  oppres- 
sion and  of  organisation  that  seems  especially 
destined  to  prepare  the  future  ? 

Engels,  for  his  part,  had  so  strict  and  rigid  a 
conception  of  the  inflexibility  of  the  capitalist 
system,  of  its  impotence  to  adapt  itself  to  the 
least  reform,  that  he  made  the  gravest  and  most 
decisive  mistakes  in  his  interpretation  of  social 
movements.  It  is  difiBcult  to  imagine  grosser 
blunders  than  those  that  he  committed  on  every 
page  of  his  celebrated  book  on  The  Situation  of 
the  Working  Classes  in  England.  He  saw  every- 
where inconsistencies,  impossibilities,  and  in- 
soluble contradictions,  which  could  only  be  done 


The  Question  of  Method      165 

away  with  by  revolution.  In  1845  he  announced 
as  imminent  and  absolutely  inevitable  in  Eng- 
land, a  labour  and  Communist  revolution,  which 
was  to  be  the  bloodiest  in  history.  The  poor 
would  butcher  the  rich  and  burn  their  castles. 
No  doubt  was  possible  on  that  score.  "  It  is  no- 
where easier  to  prophesy  than  in  England,  be- 
cause here  all  social  developments  are  extremely 
well-defined  and  acute.  The  revolution  ')nust 
come,  it  is  already  too  late  to  propose  a  pacific 
solution."  Strange  conception  of  that  England, 
always  so  expert  in  compromise  and  evolutionary 
changes  !  He  carried  his  dogmatism  in  social 
questions  to  such  a  pitch  that  he  ended  by  adopt- 
ing toward  the  specific  problems  of  the  time  the 
same  tone  as  that  of  the  most  obstinate  conserva- 
tives. All  social  and  political  progress  under  the 
present  system  seemed  to  him  as  impossible  as  it 
did  to  them.  According  to  him  the  Chartists  had 
got  England  into  a  corner  whence  the  only  issues 
were  destruction  on  the  one  hand,  or  the  complete 
Communist  Revolution  on  the  other.  They  de- 
manded universal  suffrage,  but  this  was  irrecon- 
cilable with  monarchy;  they  demanded  a  ten-hour 
day,  but  this  was  irreconcilable  with  the  emerg- 
encies of  production  under  the  capitalist  system, 
and  its  effect,  excellent  indeed,  would  be  to  force 
England  to  adopt  the  new  methods  under  the 
penalty  of  financial  ruin.  '  '  The  political-economy 
arguments  of  the  manufacturers,"  wrote  Engels, 
"  that  the  ten-hour  law  would  raise  the  cost  of 


i66  Studies  in  Socialism 

production,  that  English  manufactures  would  not 
be  able  to  compete  successfully  with  foreign  pro- 
ducts, and  that  wages  would  necessarily  fall,  are 
partly  true;  but  they  prove  only  one  thing,  and 
that  is  that  the  industrial  greatness  of  England 
can  be  maintained  only  by  the  barbarous  treat- 
ment inflicted  on  the  labourers,  by  the  destruction 
of  health,  and  the  social,  physical,  and  intellectual 
degradation  of  whole  generations.  Naturally,  if 
the  ten-hour  bill  were  to  become  a  legal  measure, 
England  would  be  immediately  ruined;  but  be- 
cause this  law  would  necessarily  involve  others 
that  would  force  her  into  a  course  of  action  dia- 
metrically opposed  to  that  which  she  has  pursued 
hitherto,  the  law  would  be  a  step  in  advance," 

What  a  spirit  of  mistrust  he  shows  toward  all 
partial  reforms,  what  narrow  limits  he  assigns  to 
the  forces  of  self-transformation  innate  in  the 
industrial  system  !  And  when,  fifty  years  after- 
wards, in  1892,  Engels  republished  this  book,  he 
never  dreamed  for  a  moment  of  asking  himself  by 
what  corruption  of  thought,  by  what  systematic 
error,  he  had  been  led  to  such  false  ideas  on  the 
political  and  social  movement  in  England.  He 
preferred  to  view  with  complacency  a  work  to 
which  history  had  given  the  lie  in  almost  every 
particular.  It  is  then  perfectly  natural  to  suppose 
that  Engels,  with  this  fundamental  conception  of 
things,  should  have  always  inclined,  as  Marx  did, 
to  give  precedence  to  the  forces  that  in  the  capi- 
talist  system    tend  to  lower  the  status  of  the 


The  Question  of  Method      167 

workmen,  over  those  forces  tliat  tend  to  raise  it. 

But  it  is  not  very  important  what  interpretation 
we  give  to  the  obscure  and  uncertain  thought  of 
Marx  and  Engels  on  this  subject.  The  essential 
thing  is  that  no  Socialist  nowadays  accepts  the 
theory  of  the  absolute  pauperisation  of  the  prole- 
tariat. All  Socialists,  indeed,  some  openly,  others 
with  infinite  precautions,  some  with  a  mischievous 
Viennese  good-nature,  declare  it  to  be  untrue  that, 
taken  as  a  whole,  the  economic  material  condition 
of  the  proletariat  is  getting  worse  and  worse.  It 
must  be  conceded,  after  taking  account  of  the 
tendency  to  sink  and  the  tendency  to  rise,  that  in 
the  immediate  reality  of  life,  the  tendency  to  sink 
is  not  the  stronger.  Once  this  has  been  granted 
it  is  no  longer  possible  to  repeat  after  Marx  and 
Engels  that  the  capitalist  system  will  perish  be- 
cause it  does  not  ensure  to  those  whom  it  exploits 
the  minimum  necessities  of  life.  It  follows  from 
the  same  admission  that  it  has  also  become  puerile 
to  expect  that  an  economic  cataclysm,  menacing 
the  proletariat  in  its  very  existence,  will  bring 
about,  by  the  revolt  of  the  instinct  of  self-pre- 
servation, the  "  violent  overthrow  of  the  bour- 
geoisie." 

Thus,  the  two  hypotheses,  one  historic  and  the 
other  economic,  from  which,  according  to  the 
ideas  of  the  Communist  Maiiifesto,  the  sudden  pro- 
letarian revolution  would  inevitably  result,  are 
proved  to  be  equally  untenable.  In  the  political 
world  there  will  be  no  bourgeois  revolution  on 


1 68         Studies  in  Socialism 

which  the  revolutionary  proletariat  can  mount 
and  ride  to  victory,  and  in  the  economic  world  no 
cataclysm  which  will  set  up  in  a  single  day  the 
class  domination  of  the  Communist  proletariat, 
and  a  new  system  of  production  on  the  ruins  of 
overthrown  capitalism.  These  hypotheses  have 
not,  however,  been  altogether  vain.  If  the  prole- 
tariat has  been  unable  to  seize  the  control  of  a 
single  one  of  the  bourgeois  revolutions,  it  has 
nevertheless  in  a  hundred  and  twenty  years  forced 
its  way  into  all  the  agitations  of  the  revolutionary 
bourgeoisie;  and  it  will  continue  to  profit  by  the 
inevitable  internal  conflicts  of  the  bourgeoisie.  If 
there  has  not  been  a  complete  and  revolutionary 
reaction  of  the  instinct  of  self-preservation  under 
the  pressure  of  a  complete  capitalist  catastrophe, 
there  have  nevertheless  been  innumerable  crises, 
that,  showing  as  they  do  the  essential  disorder  of 
capitalist  production,  have  naturally  incited  the 
proletarians  to  prepare  a  new  order.  But  they 
commit  a  serious  error  who  expect  the  letter  of 
the  prophecy  to  be  fulfilled,  who  look  for  the  sud- 
den downfall  of  capitalism,  and  the  sudden  ac- 
cession of  the  proletariat  to  power  as  the  result 
either  of  a  great  political  collapse  of  bourgeois 
society,  or  a  great  economic  collapse  of  bourgeois 
production. 

It  is  not  by  an  unexpected  counter-stroke  of 
political  agitation  that  the  proletariat  will  gain 
supreme  power,  but  by  the  methodical  and  legal 
organisation  of  its  own  forces  under  the  law  of 


The  Question  of  Method      169 

the  democracy  and  universal  suffrage.  It  is  not 
by  the  collapse  of  the  capitalistic  bourgeoisie,  but 
by  the  growth  of  the  proletariat,  that  the  Com- 
munist order  will  gradually  install  itself  in  our 
society.  Whoever  accepts  these  truths,  which 
have  now  become  necessary,  will  soon  understand 
the  precise  and  certain  methods  of  social  trans- 
formation and  progressive  organisation  which 
they  entail.  Those  who  do  not  completely  ac- 
cept them  and  those  who  do  not  take  the  decisive 
result  of  the  proletarian  movements  of  a  century 
very  seriously;  those  who  revert  to  the  Commimist 
Manifesto  so  obviously  superannuated  by  the 
course  of  events,  or  who  mix  remnants  of  old 
thought  that  no  longer  contain  any  truth  with 
the  direct  and  true  thoughts  suggested  by  present 
reality,  all  such  Socialists  condemn  themselves  to 
a  life  of  chaos. 

But  I  could  justify  these  general  affirmations  in 
detail  only  by  the  minute  analysis  of  the  present 
tendencies  of  French  Socialism  and  International 
Socialism.  I  could  make  out  the  case  for  the 
method  I  have  sketched  here  only  by  specific  ap- 
plications and  by  the  exposition  of  a  programme 
of  "  revolutionary  evolution."  This  I  shall  at- 
tempt in  a  more  systematic  work  and  one  more 
carefully  planned  than  these  fragmentary  studies, 
which  I  now  offer  by  request  to  those  fair-minded 
readers  who  are  anxious  to  obtain  in  these  diffi- 
cult questions  even  a  modest  beginning  of  light. 


XIV 

SPEECH  AT  THE  ANGEO-FRENCH  PAR- 
EIAMENTARY   DINNER' 

For  me  too  it  is  a  great  pleasure  to  welcome 
our  guests  this  evening,  and  I  hail  with  delight 
this  latest  sign,  which  has  been  preceded  by- 
many  others,  of  the  coming  together  of  two  great 
nations. 

One  hundred  and  twenty  years  ago,  in  the 
revolutionary  crisis  that  hurried  forward  the 
movement  of  the  modern  world,  they  met  in  a 
long  and  violent  conflict.  But  this  formidable 
encounter  did  not  compromise  the  future.  Eng- 
land might  have  feared  the  growing  and  ex- 
panding Revolution.  She  feared  that  her  free 
commerce  and  her  legitimate  influence  would  be 
imperilled  by  a  coalition  of  all  the  European  na- 
tions, united  by  the  revolutionary  Idea  and  the 
revolutionary  Sword.  And  she  feared  that  a  vio- 
lent propaganda  would  disturb  the  balance  of  her 
own  constitution  and  would  substitute  the  réghne 
of  crises  for  the  strong  and  continuous  evolution 
that  marked  her  own  greatness. 


'  Delivered  on  November  26,  1903. 
170 


Anglo-French  Dinner  Speech  171 

Hence  arose  a  misunderstanding  big  with  storm 
and  peril.  Experience,  however,  has  shown  that 
the  very  Revolution  that  quickened  the  free  en- 
ergies of  all  peoples,  increased  also  the  scope  and 
the  resources  of  the  eldest  of  the  free  peoples. 
Experience  has  shown  that  the  ardent  force  of  the 
French  Revolution  animated  without  disturbing 
the  evolution  of  the  English  nation:  this  nation 
has  been  able  to  pass  without  a  shock  from  the 
oligarchical  suffrage  of  Pitt  to  the  almost  univer- 
sal suffrage  of  Gladstone;  it  has  been  able  to 
enlarge  the  foundations  of  its  public  life  without 
disturbing  them. 

And  history  itself  has  done  away  with  the  mis- 
understanding, for  though  difiSculties  may  arise 
in  the  expansion  of  both  nations  across  the  face 
of  the  world,  the  day  for  irreparable  conflicts  has 
long  since  passed  away.  Against  accidents  and 
surprises  we  have  now  set  a  friendship  that  is 
growing  daily  in  trust  and  good  understanding. 
It  is  in  the  organisation  of  this  friendship,  if  I 
may  use  the  expression,  that  we  are  now  engaged. 

This  friendship  is  not  exclusive,  nor  is  it  offen- 
sive; there  is  nothing  secret  about  it.  It  not 
only  does  not  threaten  any  one,  but  it  can  annoy 
no  one.  The  trust  that  exists  between  us  in- 
volves no  distrust  towards  others. 

Human  life,  and  international  life  especially, 
has  been  saturated  with  hate,  jealousy,  and  deceit 
for  so  long,  that  even  to-day,  in  the  midst  of  pro- 
found European  peace,  there  are  some  minds  who 


172  Studies  in  Socialism 

cannot  see  two  nations  drawing  closer  together 
without  speculating  against  whom  or  against 
what  they  are  uniting.  These  people  could  not, 
I  suppose,  attend  a  wedding  without  asking 
against  whom  the  marriage  was  directed.  No, 
if  the  great  free  peoples,  living  under  the  parlia- 
mentary regime,  England,  Italy,  and  France,  join 
hands  and  become  friends,  it  is  not  with  the  idea 
of  using   the   advantages  of   freedom   to  secure 

selfish  ends.  They  do  it  to  help  on  the  great 
European  and  human  alliance,  by  enlarging  and 
extending  national  friendships.  They  do  it  to 
serve  the  cause  of  civilisation,  of  justice,  and  of 
peace,  in  Europe,  in  the  Near  East,  and  at  last  in 
the  entire  world  ! 

And  the  workers  of  France  and  England  long 
passionately  for  this  great  European  peace,  the 
peace  of  all  humanity,  stable,  well  organised,  and 
permanent.  In  these  quiet  and  smiling  days  I 
cannot  forget  that  a  few  years  ago,  at  the  very 
height  of  the  crisis  that  threatened  the  good  rela- 
tions of  the  two  countries,  delegates  from  the 
English  trades-unions  came  to  Paris  and  entered 
into  a  compact  of  brotherly  friendship  with  the 
French  unions  at  the  Bourse  de  Travail.  And 
they  said  then  a  wise  and  true  thing  :  that  we 
ought  to  build  up  a  reserve  of  confidence  and 
solidarity  between  the  two  nations  in  peaceful 
years,  upon  which  we  could  draw  during  the 
trials  and  excitements  of  difiScult  times. 

This  is  what  we  are  doing  to-day,  gentlemen. 


Anglo-French  Dinner  Speech  1 73 

We  are  devoting  to  the  cause  of  peace  that  faculty 
of  foresight  which,  until  to-day,  man  has  reserved 
exclusively  for  the  service  of  war. 

I  lately  found  in  our  National  Library  a  little 
anonymous  work,  published  by  Johnson,  near  St. 
Paul's  Church,  in  1792,  in  which  the  author 
cries:  "  The  time  has  come  when  the  silent  ma- 
jesty of  misery  must  be  heard,"  The  majesty  of 
suffering  labour  is  no  longer  dumb  :  it  speaks 
now  with  a  million  tongues,  and  it  asks  the  na- 
tions not  to  increase  the  ills  which  crush  down 
the  workers  by  an  added  burden  of  mistrust  and 
hate,  by  wars  and  the  expectation  of  wars. 

Gentlemen,  you  may  ask  how  and  when  and 
in  what  form  this  longing  for  international  con- 
cord will  express  itself  to  some  purpose.  I  will 
not  hazard  a  guess  this  evening.  Experience 
has  taught  me  that  one  must  be  prudent  when 
one  speaks  on  these  questions  before  one  Parlia- 
ment, and  reason  suggests  that  this  prudence 
should  be  doubled  when  speaking  before  two. 

Moreover,  if  we  lack  modesty  and  patience,  we 
need  only  remember  that  in  1790  an  Englishman 
who  (before  M.  Mill)  represented  the  town  of 
Calais — the  famous  Co7iventionncl,  Thomas  Paine 
— wrote  in  a  book,  which  had  a  great  success  in 
France,  that  England,  France,  and  the  United 
States  ought  to  agree  to  cut  down  their  naval  ex- 
penses by  half,  and  devote  the  money  thus  econo- 
mised to  old-age  pensions  for  workmen;  but  the 
memory  of  this  plea  is  already  distant,  so  distant 


174         Studies  in  Socialism 

that  there  is  more  pathos  than  danger  in  evoking 
it. 

And  if  you  press  me  to  risk  a  prophecy  on  my 
own  account,  I  can  only  answer  you  by  a  parable 
which  seems  a  little  strange  still  and  obscure.  I 
gleaned  it  by  fragments  from  the  legends  of  Mer- 
lin the  magician,  from  the  Arabian  Nights,  and 
from  a  book  that  is  still  unread. 

Once  upon  a  time  there  was  an  enchanted 
forest.  It  had  been  stripped  of  all  verdure,  it 
was  wild  and  forbidding.  The  trees,  tossec^  by 
the  bitter  winter  wind  that  never  ceased,  struck 
one  another  with  a  sound  as  of  breaking  swords. 
When  at  last,  after  a  long  series  of  freezing  nights 
and  sunless  days  that  seemed  like  nights,  all  liv- 
ing things  trembled  with  the  first  call  of  spring, 
the  trees  became  afraid  of  the  sap  that  began  to 
move  within  them.  And  the  solitary  and  bitter 
spirit  that  had  its  dwelling  within  the  hard  bark 
of  each  of  them  said  very  low,  with  a  shudder 
that  came  up  from  the  deepest  roots  :  '  '  Have  a 
care!  If  thou  art  the  first  to  risk  yielding  to  the 
wooing  of  the  new  season,  if  thou  art  the  first  to 
turn  thy  lance-like  buds  into  blossoms  and  leaves, 
their  delicate  raiment  will  be  torn  by  the  rough 
blows  of  the  trees  that  have  been  slower  to  put 
forth  leaves  and  flowers." 

And  the  proud  and  melancholy  spirit  that  was 
shut  up  within  the  great  Druidical  oak  spoke  to 
its  tree  with  peculiar  insistence:  "  And  wilt  thou, 
too,  seek  to  join  the  universal  love-feast,  thou 


Anglo-French  Dinner  Speech  175 

whose  noble  branches  have  been  broken  by  the 
storm  ?  '  ' 

Thus,  in  the  enchanted  forest,  mutual  distrust 
drove  back  the  sap,  and  prolonged  the  death-like 
winter  even  after  the  call  of  spring. 

What  happened  at  last  ?  By  what  mysterious 
influence  was  the  grim  charm  broken  ?  Did  some 
tree  find  the  courage  to  act  alone,  like  those  April 
poplars  that  break  into  a  shower  of  verdure  and 
give  from  afar  the  signal  for  a  renewal  of  all  life  ? 
Or  did  a  warmer  and  more  life-giving  beam  start 
the  sap  moving  in  all  the  trees  at  once  ?  For  lo! 
in  a  single  day  the  whole  forest  burst  forth  into  a 
magnificent  flowering  of  joy  and  peace,  {ap- 
plause.) 

Gentlemen,  if  you  will  allow  me  to  fit  my  toast 
to  this  old  allegory,  and  to  give  it  before  you  and 
with  you  the  form  of  an  invocation  to  Natiu"e,  I 
will  drink  to  the  sunbeam  that  charmed  the  whole 
forest  into  bloom. 

These  admirable  words  were  greeted  by  a  burst 
of  enthusiasm.  Friends  and  opponents  alike  came 
up  to  congratulate  the  Socialist  leader. 

(Extract  from  the  report  of  the  visit  of  the 
group  of  Knglish  members  of  Parliament  to 
Paris.  ) 


XV 

TRUTH   OR   FICTION?' 

I  WAS  present  the  other  day,  quite  by  chance, 
at  the  successful  trial  trip  of  M.  Santos  Dumont's 
airship  at  lyongchamp.  It  is  for  man  a  great 
emotion  and  a  great  joy  to  witness  a  new  victory 
of  man  over  inanimate  things.  I  do  not  know 
what  the  practical  value  of  these  experiments  may 
be.  They  are  undoubtedly  only  the  feeble  begin- 
ning of  an  uncertain  invention,  because  it  seems 
that  the  aeronaut  cannot  risk  his  balloon  against 
the  full  strength  of  the  wind  and  probably  his 
motors  could  not  stand  a  long  trip. 

But  he  does  steer:  he  makes  the  balloon  turn 
in  every  direction  and  then  go  like  an  arrow  to 
the  point  he  has  fixed  upon.  For  the  first  time 
the  line  of  a  human  will  has  been  marked  in 
space,  the  plan  of  a  human  thought  developed. 
Until  now  balloons  could  only  be  steered  in  a  ver- 
tical direction,  and  that  very  clumsily.  They 
dropped  lower  when  part  of  their  gas  was  allowed 
to  escape,  they  rose  higher  when  part  of  their 
ballast  was  thrown  overboard,  but  beyond  that 


'  Petite  République^  October  26,  1901. 
176 


Truth  or  Fiction?  ^n 

they  were  a  prey  to  the  forces  of  nature,  the  play- 
thing of  winds  and  violent  or  treacherous  currents. 

Man,  suddenly  helpless  and  paralysed,  was 
swallowed  up  by  space.  He  was  nothing  more 
than  a  thing  subject  to  the  blind  sway  of  the  ele- 
ments, and  his  mind  was  a  passive  spectator  of 
the  struggle  of  different  forces  ;  it  could  not  con- 
trol, it  could  not  interfere.  Man  is  really  present 
only  when  thought  is  active  and  will  is  at  least 
partly  effective.  So  until  now  it  was  only  a  sort 
of  effigy  of  man  and  not  man  himself  who  braved 
the  heights.  Now  at  last  man  with  his  imperious 
will  and  his  definite  and  vigorous  thought  is  as- 
serting himself  in  the  upper  spaces. 

It  was  not  without  emotion  that  I  saw  the  bal- 
loon, after  having  turned  on  itself  several  times 
to  test  its  power,  start  off  swiftly  and  go  in  a 
straight  line  exactly  to  the  spot  toward  which  the 
mind  of  man  was  steering  it  by  the  rudder.  Here 
was  no  longer  the  light  caprice  of  natural  forces, 
no  longer  the  terrifying  lawlessness  of  the  cur- 
rents and  winds.  In  their  place  had  been  sub- 
stituted the  rectitude  of  human  thought,  the 
systematic  inflexibility  of  the  human  will,  master 
at  last  of  what  had  been  for  us  hitherto  the  region 
of  the  formless,  the  unregulated,  and  the  chaotic. 
It  was  a  splendid  sight  and  stirred  all  one's 
mental  pride. 

As  I  watched  that  swift  and  well  regulated  flight 
I  thought  of  Homer's  marvellous  intuition  and  of 
his  magnificent  simile  in  which  he  seems  to  have 


178  Studies  in  Socialism 

a  presentiment  of  the  future  harmony  of  sub- 
missive nature  and  sovereign  mind:  "Their 
ships  went  afar  oflf,  swift  and  true  as  the  flight  of 
thought."  Now  it  was  the  air-ship  that  went, 
not  yet  afar  off",  but  swift  and  true  like  thought. 
Marvellous  intuition  of  the  Greek  poet,  making 
the  harmony  of  thought  the  ideal  measure  of  all 
motion. 

That  is  the  aim  of  man,  that  is  the  object  of  life 
eternally  carried  on  by  the  species  :  to  subdue  all 
nature  to  the  harmonious  law  of  mind.  And  hu- 
man society  will  come  under  the  same  sway,  for 
it  too  is  still  but  a  part  of  nature,  it  is  blind  and 
unconscious  as  she  is  and  composed  of  brutal  and 
obscure  forces  at  war  with  each  other  and  con- 
trolled by  no  one. 

And  those  phenomena  that  we  call  crises,  what 
are  they  if  not  a  revelation  of  the  chaotic  and 
rebellious  nature  that  still  forms  the  basis  of  hu- 
man society?  We  can  never  have  a  "  human" 
society  or  humanity,  in  the  true  sense  of  the  word, 
until  men  have  learned  to  govern  social  phe- 
nomena as  they  are  learning  to  govern  natural 
phenomena.  In  that  frail  balloon  moving  delib- 
erately toward  its  goal  I  see  a  part  of  the  immense 
human  problem.  I  might  express  it  in  this  way  : 
to  make  life,  social  life  as  well  as  natural  life,  a 
thing  that  can  be  steered,  and  to  confide  the  man- 
agement of  it  to  humanity  itself,  a  humanity  that 
shall  be  free,  self-conscious,  and  united.     Thus 


Truth  or  Fiction?  179 

the  thoughts  familiar  to  Socialists  took  on  fresh 
shape  and  meaning  to  me. 

But  ironic  reality,  that  sometimes  takes  delight 
in  a  juxtaposition  of  events  as  fanciful  as  romance, 
recalled  me  quickly  to  the  world  of  vain  quarrels, 
sharp  disputes,  and  misunderstandings.  While  I 
was  rejoicing  in  a  free  impersonal  pride  the  pride 
of  the  human  race  and  of  Socialism,  and  was 
looking  with  emotion  on  the  spectacle  presented 
by  victorious  man,  master  of  nature  and  of  him- 
self, a  knot  of  curious  observers  had  been  formed. 
They  were  watching  the  bold  attempt  and  were 
nearly  all  enthusiastic  and  sympathetic.  But  I 
recognised  one  of  my  friends,  a  man  whose  con- 
clusions often  distress  me,  on  the  outskirts  of  the 
group.  He  is  a  rather  excitable  but  perfectly 
sincere  journalist  who,  when  he  is  telling  a  story, 
only  gets  confused  in  the  matter  of  names  and 
dates,  or  so  his  editor  says. 

He  alone  remained  sombre  and  doubting  as 
though  he  were  carrying  the  burden  of  a  bitter 
secret. 

"How  strange!"  he  murmured;  "here  is  a 
justification  of  all  our  suspicions.  He  could  turn 
from  right  to  left  and  he  turns  from  left  to  right, 
the  direction  of  every  treachery.  '  ' 

The  people  who  stood  about  were  astonished. 

"Will  you  never  be  able  to  see  and  under- 
stand?" he  went  on  in  a  sharper  tone.  "  After 
giving  you  all  the  ideas  you  have,  must  I  explain 

'  The  reactionary  parties  sit  ou  the  right  iu  the  French 
Parliament. 


i8o         Studies  in  Socialism 

this  to  you  too?  Don't  you  see  that  this  man 
has  agreed  to  go  round  the  Eiffel  Tower  that  was 
built  with  the  stolen  Panama  money  ?  Don't  you 
see  that  in  bringing  the  Eiffel  Tower  into  an  ex- 
periment that  is,  anyway,  of  very  doubtful  value 
but  that  has  excited  all  the  faddists  of  progress 
and  of  science,  they  wished  to  rehabilitate  the 
Panama  Company  and  Eiffel,  and  Waldeck-Rous- 
seau,  who  was  their  champion  ?  I  say  to  you,  I 
who  have  not  been  bought  by  either  cheats  or 
fools,  what  you  see  up  there  is  a  trick  of  the  Min- 
istry and  the  Panama  Company.  That  man  has 
stolen  right  and  left:  he  has  stolen  from  the  pub- 
lic secret  funds  and  I,  I  alone  wall  denounce  him." 

And,  as  the  balloon  disappeared  behind  the 
glowing  tops  of  the  autumn  trees,  he  cried  in  a 
voice  that  was  rather  sharp  and  shrill: 

'^  Pa7iamiste  /  Panamiste  !  ^^ 

I  was  pondering  over  this  amazing  sequence  of 
ideas  and  awaiting  with  some  anxiety  the  reap- 
pearance of  the  poor  abused  balloon  when  a 
"  revolutionist  "  hailed  me.  He  is  an  authentic, 
implacable,  impeccable  revolutionist,  one  of  those 
whose  loyal  service  to  the  Revolution  can  never 
be  brought  into  question,  since  they  spend  pre- 
cisely the  whole  of  their  lives  in  accusing  others 
of  not  serving  it.  Just  then  the  balloon  reap- 
peared, struggling  against  the  wind  this  time, 
tossed  by  invisible  billows,  pitching  and  plung- 
ing, but  in  spite  of  all  keeping  firmly  on  its  way 
on  that  uncertain  and  troublous  upper  sea.     The 


Truth  or  Fiction  ?  i8j 

revolutionist  pointed  to  the  poor  little  balloon  that 
with  puny  but  heroic  steadfastness  was  moving 
toward  its  goal.  His  gesture  was  haughty  and 
contemptuous. 

*  '  There,  '  '  he  said  roughly,  '  '  you  see  where  all 
the  compromises  of  Empiricism  and  Reformism 
lead  to  !  Is  that  what  science  prophesied  ?  Is  that 
what  we  in  the  name  of  science  promised  to  the 
people  and  to  humanity?  Men  have  been  promised 
complete  control  over  the  air;  they  have  been  told 
that  they  are  to  mount  to  the  level  of  the  mount- 
ain-tops without  effort  and  that  they  are  to  have 
dominion  over  infinite  horizons.  And  now  what 
is  offered  to  them  ?  A  little  promenade  of  a  few 
miles  two  hundred  metres  above  the  earth,  in 
easy,  mediocre,  bourgeois  weather.  I  call  it  a 
shame,  a  miserable  trick, 

"  We  were  expecting  a  Leviathan  of  the  air, 
that  was  to  carry  the  whole  human  race,  freed 
from  the  bonds  of  gravity,  fastened  to  his  great 
belly.  And  they  offer  us  this  little  flying-fish, 
this  minnow  from  the  Seine  that  has  jumped  out 
of  the  water.  Mystification  and  abdication  !  The 
way  to  take  the  strength  and  courage  out  of  peo- 
ple is  by  producing  these  grotesque  parodies, 
these  sham  discoveries  that  can  only  be  compared 
to  sham  reforms.  We  refuse  to  countenance  such 
disillusionising  attempts.  We  refuse  to  coun- 
tenance such  imitations  of  the  great  scientific 
programme. 

"  And  then  what  is  the  use  of  inventing  bal- 


1 82  Studies  in  Socialism 

loons  under  our  present  social  conditions  ?  You 
know  perfectly  well  that  no  one  will  profit  by 
them  but  the  members  of  the  privileged  class. 
They  -will  be  class  balloons.  Citizen  Lafargue 
was  right  when  he  said  that  the  scientists,  Volta, 
Galvani,  Ampère,  Oersted,  and  the  others,  had 
only  invented  electricity  so  that  the  capitalists 
could  force  women  to  work  at  night.  Here  we 
have  an  ingenious  application  of  economic  ma- 
terialism and  a  useful  warning.  Who  knows 
what  plot  international  capitalism  will  mature  in 
the  lofty  solitude  of  the  night  when  a  fleet  of  air- 
ships are  able  to  give  each  other  a  meeting-place 
there  ? 

"  No,  indeed,  we  are  not  going  to  be  deceived; 
we  are  not  going  to  compromise  ourselves.  Since 
they  desire  schism,  let  them  have  it.  We  will 
found  the  group  of  Revolutionary  Aeronauts,  in 
other  words,  of  aeronauts  who  will  wait  until  the 
Revolution  is  accomplished  before  they  invent 
balloons.  Science  would  prostitute  itself  if  it  al- 
lowed a  ray  of  glory  to  light  up  the  last  days  of 
bourgeois  societ5\  We  will  leave  to  others  the 
shame  of  this  prostitution." 

In  spite  of  this  tirade,  the  poor  little  scorned 
and  excommunicated  balloon  was  enduring  the 
final  onslaught  of  a  wind- wave  more  violent  than 
the  others,  before  arriving  at  the  end  that  the 
humble  and  glorious  will  of  man  had  set  for  it. 
By  a  supreme  effort  it  overcame,  and  as  it  began 
to  descend  with  a  precise,  slow,  and  measured 


Truth  or  Fiction?  183 

movement  the  '  '  revolutionary  '  '  raised  his  curs- 
ing voice  and  cried  : 

'  '  Come  down,  come  down  !  you  are  desecrating 
our  ideal." 


XVI 

MOONLIGHT 

I  WAS  walking  the  other  evening  in  the  coun- 
try, and  talking  with  a  young  friend  who  had  just 
graduated  among  the  first  of  his  class  at  the  École 
Polytechnique  after  having  done  very  good  work 
in  literature,  and  who  is  as  broad-minded  as  he 
is  keen. 

Our  way  led  over  a  broad  upland,  shut  in  on 
the  left  by  low  rounded  hills  which  were  separated 
by  ravine-like  meadows.  The  full  moon  lit  up 
the  fresh  clear  space,  and  the  pale  distant  stars 
shone  with  a  tender  sweetness.  The  road,  white 
under  the  radiance,  stretched  out  straight  before 
us  and  was  lost  far  away  in  the  mystery  of  the 
horizon,  bathed  in  light  and  shadow.  It  seemed 
to  lead  from  reality  to  dreamland. 

"  Yes,"  I  said  to  him,  "  the  thing  that  angers 
me  in  our  present  society  is  not  only  the  physical 
suffering  that  might  be  mitigated  by  another 
regime,  but  the  moral  suffering  that  is  brought  by 
a  state  of  warfare  and  monstrous  inequality. 

"  To  labour  should  be  a  natural  function  and  a 
joy;  often  it  is  nothing  more  than  servitude  and 

'  La  Dépêche,  October  15,  1890. 
184 


Moonlight  185 

suffering.  It  ouglit  to  be  the  war  waged  by  all 
mankind  united  against  inanimate  things,  against 
the  fatalities  of  nature  and  the  difiSculties  of  life; 
it  is  the  war  of  man  with  man.  Men  spend  their 
days  struggling  to  take  from  one  another  the  joys 
of  life  by  fraud,  by  the  arts  of  bitter  greed,  the 
oppression  of  the  weak,  and  all  the  violent  meth- 
ods of  unlimited  competition.  Kven  among  those 
who  are  called  happy  there  are  few  who  are  really 
happy,  because  the  brutal  conditions  of  life  hold 
them  in  their  grip;  they  hardly  have  the  right  to 
be  just  and  kind  under  pain  of  ruin.  In  the  uni- 
versal warfare,  some  are  the  slaves  of  their  fortune 
as  others  are  the  slaves  of  their  poverty.  Yes,, 
above  and  below,  our  present  social  order  produces 
nothing  but  slaves,  because  those  men  are  not  free 
who  have  neither  the  time  nor  the  strength  to 
follow  the  noblest  instincts  of  their  minds  and 
their  souls. 

"  And  if  you  look  at  the  lower  grades,  what 
poverty  you  see,  I  don't  say  in  the  means  of  life, 
but  in  life  itself!  Look  at  the  millions  of  la- 
bourers; they  work  in  the  factories  and  in  the 
workshops,  yet  they  have  no  right  whatever  in 
those  factories  and  workshops;  they  can  be  turned 
out  to-morrow.  Neither  have  they  any  right  over 
the  machine  they  tend,  no  share  of  ownership  in 
the  immense  tool  that  humanity  has  bit  by  bit 
created  for  itself;  they  are  strangers  in  the  or- 
ganised power  of  the  world;  they  are  almost 
strangers  in  the  civilisation  of  the  world. 


1 86         Studies  in  Socialism 

"In  the  mines,  the  canals,  the  railroads,  the 
ports,  the  prodigious  applications  of  steam  and 
electricity  and  all  the  great  enterprises  that  de- 
velop the  power  and  the  pride  of  man,  they  have 
no  part,  no  part  at  all,  except  that  of  inert  in- 
struments. They  have  no  seat  in  the  councils 
that  decide  on  new  undertakings  and  direct  them; 
these  are  entirely  in  the  hands  of  a  limited  class 
which  knows  all  the  joys  of  intellectual  activity 
and  hardy  initiative,  just  as  it  possesses  all  the 
pleasures  of  wealth,  and  which  would  be  happy 
if  it  were  permitted  to  man  to  be  happy  apart 
from  human  solidarity.  There  are  millions  of 
labourers  who  are  reduced  to  an  inert  and  me- 
chanical existence.  And,  terrifying  as  the  idea 
is,  if  to-morrow  machines  could  be  substituted 
for  them,  nothing  would  be  changed  in  human 
existence. 

"When,  on  the  contrary.  Socialism  has  tri- 
umphed, when  conditions  of  peace  have  succeeded 
to  conditions  of  combat,  when  all  men  have  their 
share  of  property  in  the  immense  human  capital, 
and  their  share  of  initiative  and  of  the  exercise  of 
free-will  in  the  immense  human  activity,  then  all 
men  will  know  the  fulness  of  pride  and  joy;  and 
they  will  feel  that  they  are  co-operators  in  the 
universal  civilisation,  even  if  their  immediate 
contribution  is  only  the  humblest  manual  labour; 
and  this  labour,  more  noble  and  more  fraternal  in 
character,  will  be  so  regulated  that  the  labourers 
shall  always  reserve  for  themselves  some  leisure 


Moonlight  187 

hours  for  reflection  and  for  a  cultivation  ot  the 
sense  of  hfe. 

"  They  will  have  a  better  understanding  of  the 
hidden  meaning  of  life,  whose  mysterious  aim  is 
the  harmony  of  all  consciences,  of  all  forces,  and 
of  all  liberties.  They  will  understand  history 
better  and  will  love  it,  because  it  will  be  their  his- 
tory, since  they  are  the  heirs  of  the  whole  human 
race.  Finally,  the}'  will  understand  the  universe 
better;  because  when  they  see  conscience  and 
spirit  triumphing  in  humanity,  they  will  be  quick 
to  feel  that  this  universe  which  has  given  birth 
to  humanity  cannot  be  fundamentally  brutal  and 
blind,  that  there  is  spirit  everywhere,  soul  every- 
where, and  that  the  universe  itself  is  simply  an 
immense  confused  aspiration  toward  order, 
beauty,  freedom,  and  goodness.  Their  point  of 
view  will  be  changed;  they  will  look  with  new 
eyes  not  only  at  their  brother  men,  but  at  the 
earth  and  the  sky,  rocks  and  trees,  animals, 
flowers,  and  stars. 

"And  that  is  why  we  have  the  right  to  think  of 
these  things  in  the  open  fields  and  under  the  star- 
light sky.  Yes,  we  can  call  the  sublime  night  to 
witness  our  sublime  hopes,  the  night  in  which 
new  worlds  are  being  formed  in  secret,  and  we 
can  mingle  the  immense  gentleness  and  sweet- 
ness of  peaceful  nature  with  our  vision  of  human 
gentleness  and  sweetness." 

"  Well  and  good,"  answered  my  young  en- 
gineer, "but  why  don't  you  simply  talk  about 


i88         Studies  in  Socialism 

social  progress;  why  do  you  bring  in  Socialism? 
Social  progress  is  a  real  thing,  whereas  Socialism 
is  nothing  but  a  word.  It  is  the  name  of  a  small, 
but  very  vehement  or  rather  violent  sect,  which 
is,  moreover,  divided  against  itself:  it  is  not  a 
serious  force  making  for  progress.  Possibly  the 
solutions  which  the  Socialists  propose  will  be 
gradually  adopted,  but  their  triumph  will  not  be 
due  to  the  Socialists.  There  will  never  be  a  gov- 
ernment acting  and  legislating  in  the  name  of 
Socialism,  because  a  government  has  to  base  its 
action  on  existing  facts,  even  when  it  is  reforming 
the  present  order  or  creating  a  new  order.  Well, 
Socialism  poses  as  an  overwhelming  revelation,  a 
new  gospel,  that  looks  to  the  future  itself  for  the 
basis  on  which  to  build  the  future. 

"  As  a  matter  of  fact,  all  the  elements  of  the 
problem  exist  already  in  our  present  society  and 
the  solution  is  indicated  or  even  roughly  sketched 
in:  the  solution  of  the  social  problem  is  wholly 
comprised  in  political  liberty,  the  development  of 
popular  education,  and  the  right  of  labour  to  or- 
ganise. Well,  political  liberty  exists,  education, 
and  an  education  always  more  advanced,  is  be- 
coming more  and  more  diffused  in  the  labour 
world,  and  the  workers  have  the  right  to  or- 
ganise. 

"  When  they  are  better  educated  they  will  be- 
gin by  taking  part  through  their  imagination  and 
their  intelligence  in  all  great  human  undertak- 
ings, and  when  their  personal  subjective  value 


Moonlight  189 

has  been  increased  in  this  way,  it  will  react  of  its 
own  accord  on  the  social  régime  by  an  irresistible 
action  from  within  outward.  For  instance,  if  all 
the  children  of  the  lower  classes  acquire  the  taste 
and  the  need  for  reading,  if  their  education  has 
been  vital  and  effective  enough  to  bring  about 
this  result,  it  is  impossible  that  this  universal 
need  will  not  in  the  end  insure  to  the  workers 
some  hours  of  leisure  for  the  pleasures  of  the 
mind,  by  a  more  economical  regulation  of  the 
work.  Moreover,  when  they  understand  the 
mechanism  of  production  and  exchange  better, 
when  they  know  exactly  what  conditions  obtain  in 
manufacture  generally  and  in  their  industry  in 
particular,  what  its  markets  are,  what  capital  is 
invested  in  it  and  how  much  more  capital  could 
be  profitably  employed  in  its  development,  then 
these  men,  free,  organised,  and  well  educated  as 
they  will  be,  will  by  the  very  nature  of  things  be- 
gin to  be  admitted  as  members  of  the  boards  of 
directors  of  the  great  corporations,  and  afterwards, 
little  by  little,  to  the  management  of  ordinary 
business  concerns.  The  next  step  will  be  profit- 
sharing,  and  a  share  of  authority  and  of  economic 
power. 

"  But  I  repeat,  all  this  will  be  accomplished 
without  the  aid  of  any  high-sounding  formulas, 
and  we  shall  find  that  we  have  arrived  at  the  end 
of  Socialism  without  ever  having  come  across 
Socialism  on  the  way.  Old  sailors  make  the  new 
hands  believe  that  when  they  go  from  one  pole  to 


190         Studies  in  Socialism 

the  other  they  have  to  pass  over  the  line  of  the 
equator,  stretched  taut  and  firm  on  the  surface  of 
the  sea.  No,  the  hue  is  never  seen,  and  unless 
most  minute  calculations  are  made  we  cross  it 
without  having  any  idea  that  we  have  done  so:  in 
the  same  way  we  shall  cross  the  Socialist  equator. 

"  The  revolutionaries  of  1848,  for  whom  you 
appear  to  cherish  an  affection,  were  generous  but 
extremely  annoying.  They  never  spoke  of  the 
Future  without  a  capital  letter,  and  they  con- 
trasted the  Past  and  the  Present  as  though  they 
were  respectively  an  archangel  of  light  and  a 
demon  from  the  pit.  They  were  constantly  feel- 
ing the  breath  of  the  future  pass  in  their  long 
hair,  and  thrill  through  their  long  beards.  They 
looked  for  the  man  of  the  future,  the  society  of 
the  future,  the  science  of  the  future,  the  art  of  the 
future,  the  religion  of  the  future.  I  even  believe 
they  thought  the  modest  sun  that  gives  us  light  a 
very  mediocre,  very  bourgeois,  sort  of  star,  and 
that  they  were  looking  for  the  sun  of  the  future. 

"  It  always  seemed  to  them  that  souls  inflamed 
and  burning  with  zeal  were  going  to  raise  up  a 
new  social  order,  as  the  internal  fire  in  our  earth 
can  raise  up  new  mountain  peaks;  and  there  was 
not  a  little  pride  mingled  with  this  hope,  because 
they  had  made  up  their  minds  beforehand  that 
they  were  to  be  the  managers  or  directors  of  the 
new  society,  and  the  new  mountain-tops  were  to 
be  their  pedestal.  What  illusions  of  generosity! 
what  chimeras  of  vanity  !     The  main  form  of 


Moonlight  191 

human  society,  like  that  of  earth  itself,  is  fairly 
definitely  established;  there  will  be  transforma- 
tions, but  not  any  vast  metamorphosis.  There 
will  not  be  a  social  upheaval  any  more  than  there 
will  be  a  geological  upheaval. 

"  Human  progress  has  entered  upon  its  silent 
period,  which  is  not  the  least  productive.  Pascal 
used  to  say,  when  he  looked  at  the  sky  spread  out 
above  our  heads:  '  The  eternal  silence  of  those 
infinite  spaces  terrifies  me.'  For  me,  on  the 
contrary,  after  these  times  of  election  excitement, 
of  newspaper  polemics  and  all  our  wordy  agitation, 
it  has  a  message  of  consolation  and  encourage- 
ment. The  universe  knows  how  to  accomplish 
its  work  without  any  noise;  no  declamations  echo 
in  those  heights,  no  flaming  programme  obtrudes 
itself  among  the  tranquil  constellations.  I  believe 
that  French  society  has  at  last  entered  upon  that 
happy  stage  where  everything  is  accomplished 
quietly  and  without  any  jars,  because  everything 
is  accomplished  in  its  full  maturity.  There  will 
be  reforms,  great  reforms  even,  but  they  will  come 
to  pass  without  having  been  given  a  name,  and 
they  will  not  trouble  the  calm  life  of  the  nation 
any  more  than  the  dropping  of  ripe  fruit  troubles 
the  still  autumn  days.  Humanity  will  raise  itself 
insensibly  toward  fraternal  justice,  just  as  the 
earth  that  bears  us  rises  with  a  silent  motion  in 
the  starry  spaces." 

"  My  dear  fellow,  I  can  hardly  wait  to  answer 
you,  I  have  so  many  things  to  say." 


192  Studies  in  Socialism 

*'  No,  no;  don't  answer  me  to-night,  only  look 
and  listen.  While  we  are  dreaming  of  the  future 
and  arguing,  everything  that  lives,  everything 
that  exists  is  giving  itself  up  to  the  joy  of  the 
passing  moment,  to  the  instant  sweetness  of  the 
serene  night.  The  peasants  are  going  in  groups 
to  the  meeting-place  of  the  farm  to  gather  in  the 
corn,  and  as  they  go  they  are  singing  in  a  full 
chorus;  the  awakened  snake  trembles  a  little  and 
then  sleeps  again  in  the  mystery  of  the  thicket. 
In  the  stubble,  in  the  dried-up  fields,  some  poor 
little  creatures  are  still  singing;  their  music  is 
not  insistent  and  universal  as  it  is  in  the  warm 
spring  nights  or  the  hot  summer  nights;  but 
they  will  sing  till  the  end,  as  long  as  they  are  not 
really  frozen  by  the  winter.  Fires  of  dry  grass 
glow  in  the  middle  of  the  fields,  and  the  moon- 
light envelops  and  softens  their  gleam;  it  is  as 
though  the  spirit  of  the  earth  flamed  and  was 
mingled  with  the  mysterious  light  of  the  skies. 
Stray  dogs  are  barking  at  a  belated  waggon  that 
comes  slowly  along  the  road,  lit  by  a  little  lantern 
and  drawn  by  a  little  donkey.  A  lovelorn  owl 
hoots  plaintively  in  the  chestnut  grove;  the  ripe 
chestnuts  fall  with  a  thud  and  roll  down  the  little 
valleys.  A  small  green  frog  is  croaking  near  the 
fountain;  the  heavens  shine  and  the  earth  sings. 
Come,  let  the  universe  be;  it  contains  joy  for  all. 
It  is  Socialistic  after  its  own  fashion." 


INDEX 

Absolutism,  Prussian,  48. 

Action  Socialiste,  L' ,  xliii. 

Administrative  organisation,  Socialist,  xxx. 

Allegory,  an,  176-183. 

Ampère,  André  Marie,  182. 

Asceticism  and  Socialism,  16. 

Audler,  Charles,  xxii,  note. 

Autocracy,  Russian,  45-48. 

Babeuf,  François  Noël,  15,  137,  148. 

Bebel,  Ferdinand  August,  quoted,  162,  note. 

Bernstein,  162,  note. 

Bismarck,  Prince  Otto  von,  47,  68. 

Bordeaux  Congress,  Report  of,  xxxix,  note. 

Bourgeois,  Léon,  23. 

Capital  (Karl  Marx's),  162,  note. 

Capital,  private  ownership  of,  7-13. 

Carrel,  Armand,  137. 

Case  for  the  Factory  Acts,  The,  quoted,  xvi,  note. 

Class,  industrial,  growth  of,  56-58. 

Code  Napoléon,  33. 

Collectivism,  96. 

Collectivisme,  Le,  Vandervelde's,  xxvi,  note. 

Communism,  definition  of,  23-24;  49,  92,  113,  114,  115. 

Communist    Manifesto,    The,    quoted,    xxiv;    13,    137; 

quoted,   138;    142,    143-144,    146,    147,    148,   152; 

quoted,  153,   156-157;  162,  note. 
Communist  Society,  German,  43. 
Compromise,  question  of,  xxxvi. 
Congress,  International,  at  Amsterdam,  xli. 
Declaration  of  the  Rights  of  Man,  10-12. 
Democracy,  German  Social,  82-83. 
193 


194  Index 

Die  Neue  Zeit,  132,  note. 

Dreyfus,  Affaire,  67. 

Dumont,  Santos,  176. 

Eiffel  Tower,   180. 

Empiricism,  181. 

Engels,  quoted,  xxiv,  138-139,  153-154,  156-157;  164; 

quoted,  165-166. 
Ensor,  R.  C.  K.,  his  Modern  Socialism   quoted,  xxxv- 

xxxvi,  note. 
Essays  on  Socialism,  Fabian,  xxxi,  note 
Fourier,  François  Marie  Charles,  16,  17,  19. 
Franco-German  Annals,  159. 
Galvani,  Luigi,  182. 
Gambetta,  Republic  of,  148,  note. 
Gladstone,  W.   E.,  171. 
Government  or  Human  Evoluticm,  3 1 ,  note 
Guede,  xxxvii. 
Homer,  177. 
Humanité,  L',  xli. 

Hunter,  Robert,  quoted,  xiv-xv,  note. 
Individual,  the  power  of,  in  modern  society,  51-52. 
Industrial  Democracy,  quoted,  xvi,  note. 
Inequalities  remediable  through  Socialism,  184-187. 
Injustice,  social,  responsibility  for,  xvii-xxi. 
Jaurès,  Jean,  his  career  and  personality,  xU-xliii  ;  speech 

at  Anglo-French  Parliamentary  dinner,   170-175; 

his  prophecy,  174-175. 
Justice,  social,  x— xiv.     *""' 
Kaustky,  132,  and  132,  note. 
Kelly,  Edmond,  his  Government  or  Human  Evolution, 

xxvi,  note;  xxxi,  note. 
Labour,  minimum  of,  under  Socialist  régime,  xxv-xxvi. 
Lassalle,  Ferdinand,  quoted,  132,  162. 
Liberty,  individual,  8-9. 
Liebknecht,    sayings  of,  60-69,  70,  71,  72,  74,  75-76, 

77,  81-86,  87-93. 


Index  195 


Marat,  Jean  Paul,  quoted,  15. 

Marx,  Karl,  quoted,  xxiv,  44;  133,  136;  quoted,  138, 

139,    143-145,    146,    153-154,    156-157,    159-160, 

162,  note. 
Maury,  Abbé,  98. 
Menger,  Prof.,  quoted,  xxii,  xxiii;  his  L'Etat  Socialiste, 

xxxi. 
Middle  class,  economic  growth  of,  56-58. 
Miguel,  Maria  Evaristo,  quoted,  141. 
Mill,  M.,  173. 
Millerand,  66,  note. 
Miller  and.  Affaire,  xxxviii-xl. 

Mirabeau,  Honoré  Gabriel  Riquetti,  Comte  de,  56. 
Modern  Socialism,  162-163,  note. 
Motive  to  work  under  Socialist  régime,  xxv-xxx. 
Oersted,  Hans  Christian,  182. 
"Opportunism,"  Socialist,  70,  79-86. 
Owners  of  property,  despotic  position  of,  xvi. 
Paine,  Thomas,  173. 
Parliament,  the  Frankfort,  49. 

Parties,  political,  from  Socialist  standpoint,  xxxvii 
Pauperisation  of  the  proletariat,  theory  of,  167. 
Pelletan,  M.  Camille,  23. 
Petite  Républiq::c,  La,  xliii. 
Pitt,  Williari,  171. 

Presuppositions  of  Socialism,  162,  note. 
Privileged  classes  and  Socialism,  88-93. 
Production,  monopoly  of  the  means  of,  8-9. 
Propaganda,  Socialist,  86. 
Property,  private,  23-33. 
Proudhon,  Pierre  Joseph,  17,  18,  19. 
Quasi-C ollectivism,  xxi,  note. 
Radical  party  and  French  Socialism,  22. 
Red  Terror,  the,  95. 
Reformism,  181. 
Reforms  demanded  by  Socialism,  xxiv-xxv. 


196  Index 


Revolution,  Socialist,  102-105,  11 2-1 23;  dangers  of, 
124-129;  Marx's  and  Blanqui's  ideas  on,  136;  and 
the  bourgeois  revolution,  140-168. 

Russia,  45-48. 

Saint-Just,  Louis  Antoine  de,  143. 

Saint-Simon,  Claude  Henri,  16,  17,  19. 

See,  Henri,  quoted,  28-29. 

Serfdom,  25-28. 

Situation  of  the  Working  Classes  in  England,  164; 
quoted,   165-166. 

Slavery,  23-28. 

Socialism,  aim  of,  3-9,  91;  duties  of,  144-145;  establish- 
ment of,  by  will  of  majority,  94-105;  and  the 
French  Revolution,  15-17;  future  of,  20;  germs 
of,    in    peasantry,    35-40;   main    definition  of,  v; 

methods  of  establishing:  militant  method  or 

revolutionary,  xxxii-xxxiii  ;  method  unsettled,  35; 
Opportunist,  Reformist,  Revisionist,  or  Fabian, 
xxxiii-xxxvi  ;  —  militant,  20;  practibility  of,  20; 
revolutionary,  47-50,  50  sqq.,  58-59;  triumphant 
186-187. 

Société  Nouvelle,  report  of,  xxxix,  note. 

Society,  present  state  of,  184-186. 

Strike,  general,  106-129. 

Survival  of  the  fittest,  theory  of,  discussed,  xix-xxi. 

Tactics,  Socialist,  70-78. 

Unemployed,  the,  xiv,  and  xiv,  note. 

Universal  suffrage  and  Socialism,  168-169. 

Utopia  and  Socialism,  20-21. 

Vaillant,  xxxvii. 

Vandervelde,  his  Le  Collectivisme,  xxvi,  note. 

Van  Vollmar,  xxxix,  note. 

Vorwdrts,  79,  104. 

Wage-earner,  position  of,  xx-xxi. 

Waldeck- Rousseau,  180. 


Index  197 

War,  Crimean,  45,  48;  Hundred  Years',  120;  Thirty- 
Years',  120. 

Wealth,  justice  of  the  division  of,  xii-xiii;  the  root  of 
social  distinctions,  and  of  despotic  power  over 
labour,  xiv;  a  social  product,  xxi-xxiii;  Socialistic 
division  of,  xxiii-xxvii. 

Webb,  Sidney  and  Beatrice,  quoted,  xvi,  note;  their 
Industrial  Democracy,  xxxi,  note. 

Working  classes  in  England,  Engel's  remarks  on,  165- 
166. 


Ji  Selection  from  the 
Catalogue  of 

G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS 


Complete  Catalogues  sent 
on  application 


Economics. 

Hadley's  Economics. 

An  Account  of  the  Relations  between  Private  Property 
and  Public  Welfare.  By  Arthur  Twining  Had- 
LEY,  Professor  of  Political  Economy,  in  Yale  Uni- 
versity.    8°,  $2.50  net 

The  work  isnow  used  in  classes  m  Yale,  Princeton,  Harvard,  Amherst,  Dart- 
mouth, Bowdoin,  Vanderbilt,  Bucknell,  Bates,  Leland  Stanford,  University  of 
Oregon,  University  of  California,  etc. 

"  The  author  has  done  his  work  splendidly.  He  £s  clear,  precise,  and 
thorough.  .  .  .  No  other  book  has  given  an  equally  compact  and  intelligent 
interpretation." — American  Journal  of  Sociology. 

The  Bargain  Tlieory  of  Wages. 

By  John  Davidson,  M.A.,  D  Phil.  (Edin.),  Professor  of 
Political  Economy  in  the  University  of  New  Bruns- 
wick.    i2mo,  $1.50. 

_  A  Critical  Development  from  the  Historic  Theories,  together  with  an  examin- 
ation of  Certain  Wages  Factors  :  the  Mobility  of  Labor,  Trades  Unionism,  and 
the  Methods  of  Industrial  Remuneration. 

"  This  able  volume  is  the  most  satisfactory  work  on  Distribution  that  has  yet 
appeared.  Prof.  Davidson's  theory  appeals  to  our  common  sense  as  in  harmony 
with  actual  conditions,  and  he  has  worked  it  out  with  convincing  logic  in  accord- 
ance with  the  principles  of  economic  science.  We  recommend  it  all  students  of 
economics  as  the  most  important  contribution  to  the  science  of  Political  Economy 
that  has  recently  appeared." — Interior. 

Sociology. 

A  Treatise.  By  John  Bascom,  author  of  "esthetics,** 
"  Comparative  Psychology,"  etc.     12°,  $1.50. 

"  Gives  a  wholesome  and  inspiring  word  on  all  the  living  social  questions  of 
the  day  ;  and  its  suggestions  as  to  how  the  social  life_  of  man  may  be  made  purer 
and  truer  are  rich  with  the  finer  wisdom  of  the  time.  _  The  author  is  always 
liberal  in  spirit,  generous  in  his  sympathies,  and  wise  in  his  knowledge," — Critic, 

A  General  Freiglit  and  Passenger  Post. 

A  Practical  Solution  of  the  Railroad  Problem.  By 
James  L.  Cow  les.  Third  revised  edition,  with  ad- 
ditional material.     12°,  cloth,  $1.25  ;  paper,  5octs. 

"  The  book  gives  the  best  account  which  has  thus  far  been  given  in  English  of 
the  movement  for  a  reform  in  our  freight  and  passenger-t?.riff  policy,  and  the 
best  arguments  in  favor  of  such  reform,'*— Edmund  J.  James,  in  the  Annah  of 
Political  and  Social  Science. 

"  The  book  treats  in  a  very  interesting  and  somewhat  novel  way  of  an  ex- 
tremely difficult  subject  and  is  well  worth  careful  reading  by  all  students  of 
the  transportation  question."  —  From  letter  of  Edw.  A.  MosELBV,  Secretary  ol 
the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission,  Washington,  D.C. 


G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS,  New  York  and  London 


Fields, 
Factories,  and  Workshops 

or 

Industry  Combined  with  Agriculture,  and 
Brain  Work  with  Manual  Work 

By  PRINCE  KROPOTKIN 

New  Edition,  i6°     .      .      .      90  cents  net 


"  Prince  Kropotkin  possesses  the  general  scientific  temper.  .  .  . 
He  seems  to  have  been  everywhere  and  to  have  read  everything 
so  that  his  observations  have  certainly  been  widely  extended.  .  .  . 
A  book  that  should  set  people  thinking  and  should  lead  them  to 
try  by  practical  experience  to  lessen  soma  of  the  acknowledged 
evils  of  the  present  system." — The  Times,  London. 

"  Our  readers  are  recommended  to  read  carefully  Kropotkin's 
survey  of  manufacturing  progress  in  foreign  countries.  .  .  .  This 
is  clear  and  concise  and  presents  just  the  kind  of  summary  re- 
quired by  those  who,  without  time  for  intricate  details,  must  rest 
content  with  a  general  statement  of  the  world's  industrial  move- 
ment. Particularly  interesting  is  the  description  of  the  wonder- 
ful advance  now  being  made  in  agricultural  methods.  .  .  .  The 
book  is  a  most  valuable  contribution  to  the  discussion  of  a  prob- 
lem of  national  and  of  world-wide  importance." —  The  Daily 
News,  London. 

"A  book  which  is  an  admirable  example  of  its  author's  lucid- 
ity of  style  and  of  his  capacity  for  making  vital  with  human 
interest  dry  statistical  and  industrial  facts.  ...  A  work  that 
presents  a  new  outlook  in  social  economics  and  is  at  the  same 
time  most  forcible  in  its  demonstration  of  fact." — London  West, 
minster  Gazette. 


G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS 

New  York.  London 


By  CHARLES  A.  CONANT 

A  History  of  Modern  Banks 
of  Issue 

With  an  Account  of  the  Economic  Crises  of  the  Present 
Century.     Fifth  Impression,     8°.     $3.00. 

*'  No  better  volume  can  be  recommended  to  the  general  reader 
who  wishes  to  familiarize  himself  not  only  with  the  theory  of  bank- 
ing, but  with  the  history  and  actual  experience  of  this  great  agency 
of  industrial  progress." — Chicago  Evening  Post. 

"  We  can  only  express  our  hearty  appreciation  of  the  book  as  a 
whole.  It  is  extremely  interesting.  It  cannot  but  be  useful,  and  to 
us  it  is  very  cheering.  Mr.  Conant's  book,  from  beginning  to  end, 
is  a  proof  that  sound  currency  is  evolved  necessarily  from  the  pro- 
gress of  an  industrial  and  commercial  people," — N.  Y.  Times. 

Wall  Street  and  the  Country 

A   Study  of  Recent   Financial  Tendencies.     8°.     Net, 
$1.25.     (By  mail,  $1.35.) 

"  The  author  shows  a  comprehensive  grasp  of  economic  and 
financial  problems,  and  the  capacity  for  a  clearness  of  statement. 
.  .  .  His  book  should  be  in  the  hands  of  all  who  are  interested 
in  the  important  subjects  discussed." — Wall  Sti'eet  yournal. 

"  Charles  A.  Conant  is  an  able  apologist  for  the  functions  and  the 
methods  of  Wall  Street.  The  book  is  most  intelligent  and  full  of 
pertinent  information." — Indianapolis  News. 


Q.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS 

New  York  London 


I 


By  James  Albert  Woodburn 

(Professor  of  American  History  and  Politics,  Indiana  University) 

The  American  Republic  and  Its  Government. 

An  Analysis  of  the  Government  of  the  United 
States,  with  a  Consideration  of  its  Funda- 
mental Principles  and  of  its  Relations  to  the 
States  and  Territories.  Octavo  (by  mail, 
$2  20)       .....         nei,  $2  00 

"  A  sounder  or  more  useful  commentary  has  never  before 
seen  the  light.  Even  Mr.  James  Bryce's  study  of  the  'Ameri- 
can Commonwealth  '  must  on  the  whole  be  deemed  less  fruit- 
ful. Not  a  single  page  should  be  overlooked." — M.  W. 
Hazeltine  in  the  JV.   Y.  Sun. 

"  Every  citizen  that  wishes  to  obtain  a  clear  and  compre- 
hensive knowledge  of  the  government  under  which  he  lives 
can  hardly  forego  acquaintance  with  this  work,  and  its  orderly 
arrangement  and  lucid  style  will  make  the  acquaintance  a 
pleasure  as  well  as  a  profit." — Indianapolis  News. 

Political  Parties  and  Party  Problems  in  the 
United  States.  A  Sketch  of  American 
Party  History  and  of  the  Development  and 
Operations  of  Party  Machinery,  together  with 
a  Consideration  of  Certain  Party  Problems  in 
their  Relations  to  Political  Morality.  Octavo 
(by  mail,  $2  20)        .         .         .         net,  $2  00 

"An  exceptionally  clear,  interesting,  and  impartial  history 
of  American  political  parties,  a  lucid  explanation  of  the  work- 
ings of  party  machinery,  and  a  strong  statement  of  the  moral 
evils  now  debasing  our  political  life,  and  the  remedies  which 
an  awakened  public  conscience  may  apply.  A  thoroughly 
good  book  for  the  school  and  for  the  study." — Otitlook. 

Send,  for  Descriptive  Circular 

G.  P.  PUTNAM'S  SONS     . 

NEW  YORK  LONDON 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


^ 

r^^ffii^'»® 

JUN2  31975 

WtrD  LD-URL 

^•^^^/     8  198^3 

Apr  cs 

''aCNOVDI  1995 

Form  L9-Serie8  444 

- 

3  1 158  00572  1278    ^ 


-U 


HX 

265 

J32E 


AA    001213  067    0 


I 


PLEA«5E  DO   NOT    REMOVE 
THIS    BOOK  CARD    ! 


oA^LIBRARYQ^ 


University  Research  Library 


I 

X 

Ok 
01 


"C" 


